God isnt stock?... is the same as the excuses that ive stated before... you can clearly see that god should not be questioned... and that does not stop skepticism here... every detail the christian mythology contradicts science and i know that science is inadequate.. but my point is theistic worldview offers more unitelligble idea like eternal and whatnot... not to mention ethical problems... is it my or your presuppostions were carried away?
Does God exist and not exist at the same time (illogical)? No. The laws of logic apply to him outright. In the same way the laws of logic apply to the universe without a God (Atheistic world view). The Atheist doesn't account for the laws of logic but the Theist also doesn't account for the laws of logic. They are assumed by both parties. This is almost similar to saying that we need God to explain the existence of the universe. How then, do we explain God's existence? It's kinda similar
God's omnipotence doesn't mean that God can contradict His nature, Only that God has no restrictions outside His own being. God is still logical by nature otherwise truth would be meaninglessness.
Scripture tells us God is perfect, absolute, all knowing and so on. So if God is all of this, then it would be impossible for a perfect being to be self contradictory since self contradictory implies imperfection and not being absolute.
God might WANT to do something such as contradict his nature etc for reasons you will never understand because you are moronic excrement compared to God.
Perhaps being perfect requires self contradiction and you are incorrect?
Perhaps someone will pray for him to self contradict and he will grant that prayer.
Perhaps God will change what is in scripture or the meaning of 'perfect'.
etc.
Plenty of reasons why he might do it if he wanted (if he was not fictional, of course).
One of the things I've noticed is that critics of Christianity completely distort and butcher what God is in order to disprove Him.
God is infinite, unchanging, all powerful, all knowing, and all perfect.
Someone cannot ask God to violate his own nature because he is unchanging and consistent with his nature. And elaborate how being perfect requires self contradiction. Man afterall knows finitely and imperfectly but the cause of all knowledge knows infinitely and perfectly.
"God is infinite, unchanging, all powerful, all knowing, and all perfect"
If God is all powerful then he can do anything including create a universe in which he is not God - QED.
If he cannot do this then he is not all powerful - QED
Either God is all of these things because he chooses to be, in which case he can change any of them at anytime for any reason. Or there is a higher power which prevents him doing this in which case he is not all powerful.
In terms of all powerful I mean something that can effect a change in another, that is, what can cause something else to be or not be in some way. It does not have power to do what is impossible. The impossible cannot be such as God not being God. But rather has the power to make come to be whatever can come to be.
Essentially a supernatural being must, by logical necessity, operate in concert with his nature. In other words, God could not violate his own nature.
He is all powerful in that He is able to do anything His nature permits him to do. Not all Christians know this but God can't do everything. Can't lie, cannot not be God
"God has done the impossible many times".miracles? There is no logical reason why an omnipotent and omniscient God could not part the Red Sea, turn water into wine. In Christian theology God is the Creator of the universe and the master of all of its laws. He transcends space and time and is not restricted by physical laws
Omnipotence means he can do all that which is consistent with His nature.
Say God could do everthing. So if God is all powerful can He make himself not all powerful? It would not make sense it would violate the law of non contradiction. So within Christianity we would certainly say God is logical and that he would not do that which is illogical because he cannot, because He is not self refuting which we can see form the revelation of scripture.
Where did you get that definition of Omnipotence, please?
"It would not make sense it would violate the law of non contradiction"
So? God could just change the law of non contradiction if he wanted to.
If there is a limit to God's power there must be something which enforces this limit. What is it? Please address this in your reply as I have asked it several times now.
If omnipotence means the ability to do anything and everything possible then it is inherently self contradictory and self defeating.
His very nature enforces his limits such as not being able to lie, cheat, steal, not be God.
God cannot change LNC or any logical absolutes. They were not brought into existence, since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too. And if I was so bold as to inquire...how do you account for logical absolutes?
I would be very happy to explain the actual nature of logical absolutes if you would be as kind as to answer the questions contained in my previous post.
Mainly I am asking what enforces these rules on your God (such as what stops him changing logical absolutes) and where in the bible you have found the references.
Also, where you got your definition of Omnipotence from.
Aha - interesting. The bible specifies several properties of God. These properties contradict and therefore cannot be correct so rather than accept that this does not make sense you change the meaning of selected words?
I think that this shows the true nature of theistic research. Establish a conclusion, research until you find it - ignore\discredit any evidence which points to a different conclusion as it must be wrong (due to the fact you already know the correct conclusion).
Of course saying they contradict doesn't make it so. What properties contradict?
And just on a side note, there are no Bible contradictions only alleged contradictions (which actually argue for its authenticity).
In the end theism is the only adequate world view. All others are self defeating or unaffirmable. Theism has found a firm ground in existence for the conclusion that God exists.
and please say how an atheistic worldview accounts for logical absolutes
Atheism provides no solution to basic metaphysical questions regarding the existence of the universe or the origin of personality and the actualization of the world process. It ultimately asserts that something comes from nothing, that portentials actualize themselves, and that matter generated mind. To me, it seems much more reasonable to believe in God.
The authors include different, but not contradictory, details.
You have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter.that's hardly uncorroborated
Second they were eyewhitness testimony. As I said there are only alleged contradictions which actually argue for its authenticity because they called it as they saw it. They didn't get together and try to put this thing together. And you get that when you get independent testimony.
"The gospels do not contradict each other" Yes they do. They disagree on: The time of day Jesus's tomb was opened Who was there How the stone was moved Who was in the tomb What they did afterwards Whom Jesus appeared to Where he appeared Whether the disciplines recognised him Whether they were allowed to touch him How long he stayed Whether he bodily ascended His last words and only Matthew noticed that various corpses came to life and walked about
I could elaborate more on the other difficulties...but it's tedious, and the character count doesn't help either.
And if you truly want these alleged contradictions answered, I suggest looking online or reading the Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman Geisler. No doubt it would surely save your time and my time with these youtube comments. LA's?
I concur. I'll read the bible while you read the Big Book of Bible Difficulties
First, religions contradict each other; therefore, they cannot all be true.
Ex. In Mormonism there are many gods, in Christianity there is one. Concering Christianity, you have fulfilled Prophecy concerning Jesus. The Claims and Deeds of Christ. Christ's resurrection
just passing through and saw you don't understand the "contradictions" listed.
Actually the nonuniformity of the books is why scholars hold it to such high historical standard.
If you and I both experienced an event, and then were called before a judge to testify about the event our stories would be similar but not exactly the same. If they were exactly the same then the judge would suspect that we corroborated our stories. It is the small variances that actually verify the authenticity.
Yeah sure - the fact that 30 years after an event you write an account which completely differs in key points to what I write a hundred years later means that we were both telling the truth and everything happened as described ... by both of us ... even though it was different.
I think that these stories do not fit together and you are struggling to twise them until they fit to conform with what you have already decided to believe.
key points? If you look at the places that the gospels do not disagree at all you find a core message that is revolutionary. Jesus was the confessed messiah by his disciples, he performed miracles and healed people, he forgave sins, he prophesied his own death and resurrection, he died on a Roman cross, and he was raised bodily from the dead. Doesn't their agreement on an absolute core of central beliefs suggest they got the basics right precisely because they were reporting on the same events?
P.S. Those are the words of Daniel B. Wallace, PH.D. Who is actually one of the world's leading experts in ancient Greek, and foremost authorities on textual criticism.
Your statement is correct, exact stories suggest collusion and would discredit the authenticity of an event, in history and in modern schools of thought. The bible is a book revealing God in his ways, man in his need, and God's provision to meet man in his need. I think you will find it accomplishes that without disagreement.
But where they disagree (e.g. whether Jesus bodily ascended) are important points which should stick in the mind, things like who was there and how they got in should be easy to remember.
How could they get so many details wrong and still not be discounted?
Simple, people have already made their minds up. No one expects word for word matches but to have as many details wrong as they have (including whether zombies rose from the grave) is absurd.
They do not disagree on the important points (e.g. whether Jesus bodily ascended) The only place I am aware of that could possibly be construed as a disagreement on that matter would be Paul's letter to the Corinth to which he explains in chapter 15 that our heavenly bodies will differ from our earthly bodies (v.38 the body God has chosen v.36 like the former v.39-41 yet different v.42 imperishable v.49 in the image of the heavenly)
v. 20-34 Speaks of Christ raising from the dead so that all will be made alive v.35-50 concerns the dead on earth and our resurrected bodies v.51-58 talks of those who will not yet be dead when the rapture takes place.
Mark 16 9-20 are not part of the original but an addition added later on. The 2 most trustworthy versions of the NT end abruptly at verse 8. Many do not know this but anyone with a study bible will see this in the commentary.
So were left with Luke and Acts, which interestingly enough have the same author and were one book. The brief ascension story in Luke is written in a different hand and is believed by scholars to have been added when Luke-Acts was separated into the two books.
I am by no means an expert but I would be happy to carry on a more lengthy discussion with you via email if you are genuinely interested in a search for the answers to some more of the obstacles that have troubled you with Christianity.
How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations
When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peters house.
You claimed the gospels contradict so naturally I asked for the verses. And that second comment made me lol but don't get me wrong I am flattered that you took time out of your lunch...Anywaaays...
Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes, and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? There is no discrepancy because there are 14 including Abraham.
Oh and the so called force. If God had the ability to violate his own nature then he would be ever changing and self contradicting.
This non-self-violation truth would be a characteristic of God: the inability of self-contradiction.
Take your example about God creating a universe with no God...God is eternal by nature, He could not destroy himself and thus violate his attribute of eternality
"This is almost similar to saying that we need God to explain the existence of the universe. How then, do we explain God's existence? It's kinda similar"
Indeed it is, as the answer to both of your objections is that God is eternal.
Bear in mind that even if there is a super natural power which created the universe then there is no reason why it would be the Christian god. There are thousands of gods which have been worshipped throughout history. Christianity is not a special case.
Why does he keep on talking about "accounting for the laws of logic"? They are axiomatic. AXIOMATIC. Asking someone to LOGICALLY PROVE the LAWS OF LOGIC is just silly. Those laws are assumed out of hand, because they are needed for any thought to be possible. Bahnsen claims laws of logic exist because God made them, and that that is somehow correct because the laws of logic need to be shown to have a creator. Well, how can God HIMSELF exist without the laws of logic already being true?
Bahnsen makes a strong case that atheists in Stein's tradition (materialism & radical empiricism) undermine the foundations of logic & knowledge through their presuppositions.
Hmm, it depends on what you are arguing. I don't however think positivism is against Modus ponens.
I think the point is, if you claim something, you better be able to back it up with empirical evidence. So if you make a Modus ponens argument, it will be backed up with whatever you are arguing.
One example of Modus ponens:
"If you buy today, I will give you a 10% discount. You have agreed to buy today, so I will reduce the price by 10%". The empirical evidence comes with paying.
The point is that _modus ponens_ cannot be empirically verified. You asked for an example of something that was reliable but not empirically verified.
I have already pointed out that positivism is self-refuting, since the claim that "all intelligible knowledge-claims must be empirically verifiable" is not empirically verifiable. Why do you believe in a self-refuting philsoophy?
What about it cannot be empirically verified? Isn't the mere fact that it is reliable(to the real world), empirical verification? What I'm saying is, from whatever comes out of modus ponens, is empirical verification of modus ponens, ie. I offer 10% discount if you buy now. You buy now, so i give you 10% discount. The empirical verification is that you have spent 10% less.
What is non-empirically verifiable about that claim? Experience verifies it.
So experience isn't empirical? I think you need to have a look at a dictionary.
If we say something will happen in the real world with modus ponens(If this then that), from the conditions set, and it does happen that way, does that not empirically verify it? If not, then you have misdefined empirical verification.
What example? The 10% discount. Yes it does. It's a modus ponens claim, which is empirically verified.
It doesn't matter anyway. You have made no arguement, just unbased assertions about empirical verification, and i have asked many times and simply reserved assertions from you.
But your example does not verify _modus ponens_ generally. And if _modus ponens_ cannot be proven generally, then it cannot be used to make inferences.
I think Bahnsen has presented more than enough argument. Thanks for playing!
It doesn't verify it generally, but on a case by case basis it can be verified. It can also be wrong on a case by case basis.
Modus ponens isn't something that can be verified on its on. Same as saying "dog". "Dog" cannot be verified on it's own. Now if you use "dog" like, the dog wags it's tail, it can be verified with empirical evidence, but on its own, it's simply a name. Modus ponens is simply a name for an argument form. The argument form can be empirically verified with use however.
But that's the same as the simple word "Dog" cannot be verified generally. That was my point. A name, or rule, cannot be verified without use. Nothing can. I a car sits in the drive, you can make many claims about it, but you won't know if it actually works until you use it(empirical verification). Modus ponens can be empirically verified with use.
It can if it is used. Why have modus ponen and not use it? The argument type can be verified with use.
I don't know any philosopher that would take yours seriously either.
You have not explained, merely asserted. If modus ponens is used, which it must be, then the results can be verified empirically. The form of argument(call modus ponens) can be verified empirically.
I think you are taking a few words from all the i have said, and ignored the rest. You are actually putting words in my mouth.
To be honest i don't know or care anymore what you are trying to argue. All you are trying to do is give one case that cannot be empirically verified, but you wont read or accept anything i say other than a few words which you think is my concesion.
I will continue to argue if you read my arguments and rebut/offer your own.
Ok, You claim that I "asked for an example of something that was reliable but not empirically verified."
How do you know modus ponens is generally reliable? Because you have used it or seen it used, and verified the results empirically. Without that, you could not know it was reliable.
I don't think bahnsen addresses this point. He argues that the laws of logic require a basis and that the only logical basis is the Christian God.
Stein Argues that logic just is, and doesn't require a basis. Neither really gives good enough reason for their position(that it does or doesn't require basis).
Bahnsen also argues roughly "why, in a random world, do the laws of logic apply repeatedly". My response is, "the world isn't random".
'Where did the absolute Laws of nature[logic, science, moral, etc] come from?'
'"Laws" of nature are artifacts of 19th century science. Regularity in nature, however, is simply how existence is - you can't exist unless you exist as something rather than something else. This necessitates regularity.'
So back to modus ponens. If one has never seen modus ponens, then one would not accept it as reliable without seeing it used. Once it has been used, one would have experience of it and this would be empirical verification. The more it is used, the more empirical verification and the more one accepts it as reliable.
Then he tries to say they are just patterns that have predictive value.
Dumb. Ignorant. Stupid. Laughable.
But, honestly, I'm not going to discuss the problems with nominalism here in itty-bitty sound bites. If you don't see the problems with Stein's position, you should listen more carefully to Bahnsen.
Greg Bahnsen appears to be a one trick pony. His only argument is one from "why do the laws of logic exist" and then declaring that they can only exist with a god... a complete non sequitar. I wonder if he has any other points to offer because a) this point is merely playing with language and b) an unanswered question is not evidence for a seperate proposition. Dont anyone fall for this.
Re read my comment. I am not talking about what we can or can not account for. MY point is simply that he is using something we cant account for as proof for a claim that he wants to make. If you wish to reply to my points then do so, but do not reply to points i havent made.
Sure, it seems may seem like Dr. Bahnsen is a "one-trick pony" if you want to believe the worst about him. But is not really his fault that Dr. Stein keeps making the same mistake over & over again.
Stein does not want to be logical in any meaningful sense. Bahnsen is well within his rights to pummel Stein for this failing. Debate itself hinges on the use of logic.
I say no such mistakes or lack of logic on the atheist side. If there is any maybe you should be more specific instead of just declaring it to be so and running away.
I'm sorry, I thought it was clear from context. Stein repeatedly says things about logic that that are not just untrue, but laughable. Each time, Bahnsen replies by correcting Stein's error.
I'm not sure how this pattern outs Bahnsen in a bad light.
Bahnsen does claim that Stein has no rational explanation for objective logical standard, but this is because Stein says they're conventional. However, to make this claim, and to claim its actually true, you have to have an actually true logical standard. If not, then that view point is only a convention, thus the argument is self-refuting.
Bahnsen accuses Stein of not giving an explanation/account of the laws of logic, but to simply say "god did it" explains nothing, as Stein claimed earlier.
Actually, it explains everything. We are saying these laws were made by a higher intelligence.
Suppose that figures in a computer game somehow gained self-awareness, as in the "Matrix" movies. They might speculate there is a higher intelligence that created the environment in which they live. Perfectly logical, and in this case it would be correct.
But it doesn't explain anything. We have an unknown(where laws come from) and I attempt to give account/explanation for these laws or admit that i just don't know. You replace one unknown with an unknowable. God is so far out of our understanding.
To explain the unknown with another unkown is silly. It's like if you asked me how a car works. I don't know exactly so i say "you push your foot on the pedal a little bit of magic happens and the wheels turn." Does that explain anything? No
God is not an unknown. As Bahnsen is saying, each of us does know God in our heart of hearts. From him we received the ability to reason, to investigate, and to understand this world. As God is the Creator, we also have the ability to invent and create things because we are made in His image just as the Bible proclaims. So no, we Christians are not saying that some unknown and unknowable entity created everything.
If outspoken atheists would only take a simple course in basic theology ...
If God can be known, then science could find him. But it is so often argued that God is supernatural and therefore outwith our understanding.
Why is there so much arguement over what God is, and what he wants, if we all know him in our heart of hearts. I don't know him. You must give evidence of us all knowing God before that can ever be accepted.
I think we gain the ability to reason, investigate and understand from natural seletion. If we couldn't, we wouldn't have survived.
The thing is, everyone has their own subjectional view of what God is. You say we can know God, but many others say we cannot. They say we cannot because they have been in debates where the only way out, for them, is to admit we cannot know God.
If we can know God, then he is natural and must adhere to all natural laws(requires a cause). He can also be tested and is within the realms of science. If he doesn't have to adhere to the laws, then he is supernatural and outwith our understanding.
Absolutely nothing you've said lines up with the Christian view of God. As I said, learn a little theology so you will at least know the position that you are vainly attempting to refute.
Also, right in these videos Bahnsen gives evidence of everyone knowing God. In a material universe devoid of intelligence, there would be no laws, logic, or reason.
God exists in all that which you simply take for granted.
Your crazy to think that. I've debated Christians for 4 years, and have met many many who have claimed exactly what I've said.
Just because it doesn't line up with your own subjectional view, doesn't mean that it doesn't line up with anyones'. I have learned a little theology.
That is not evidence of everyone knowing God in the slightest. That is an argument for why God might exist, but it's essentially a "god of the gaps" argument.
We are intelligence, so i agree, but no need for God.
Only the most ignorant of Christians would say that if God can be known, science could find him. Jesus said, "God is spirit."(John 4:24). There is no debate among Christians whether God is supernatural. We do not all have a subjective view since the Christian view is very well defined - see the historic creeds, for example. We cannot know God fully for he is so much greater than us, but we can know something about God by his beautiful, orderly creation and by his revelation in Scripture.
Also, no true Christian would say that God must be natural since we can know him. Man himself is not only natural (body) but also supernatural (spirit), as the Bible clearly teaches. You're the only one here arguing from an entirely subjective viewpoint. But that is typical of atheists to make things up about Christianity as they go along. Anything to try and win an argument.
Also typical is the fact that you failed to respond to my argument about how logic, order, and intelligence could exist in a completely random universe. Funny how nearly every time one argues with an atheist, the answer seems to be "natural selection." However, n.s. has little to do with this debate, for it all begins with perfect fine tuning that allows quantum particles and atoms to exist in the first place. You can provide no basis for order, morality or logic in a godless universe.
You never made an argument about logic, order, etc. All you said was "In a material universe devoid of intelligence, there would be no laws, logic, or reason." That's not a reasoned argument but an assertion.
Here's my asserted answer: In a material universe devoid of God, laws, logic and reason exist.
When have i ever said the universe is completely random?
N.S. gave us reason, investigation and understanding. You claimed that only God could have gave us those, so i claimed N.S.
The universe doesn't exist on fine tuning. If the universe had expanded perfectly, from the big bang, then it wouldn't have existed as it is now. It is through the imperfections that particles could bunch to form matter, which bunched to form atoms, and so on to huge galaxies.
I only claimed n.s. for our understanding and intelligence.
And instead of making empty claims that i can't provide basis, why not ask what my basis is?
He certainly is supernatural. But if he is outwith science, then he is also outwith our understanding. We cannot possibly know God. That is my claim.
You are answering an unknown with an unknowable, therefore ending all enquiry. That's my point. We cannot know how he did it, why he did it, etc etc. God of the gaps ends all scientific enquiry and puts us back in the dark ages. It answers no questions, and allows no more questioning. It's a blackhole of science.
"And instead of making empty claims that I can't provide basis, why not ask what my basis is?"
Please be my guest and explain from an atheistic viewpoint WHY there is logic, order, and reason in this universe. After all, in your universe, we are nothing more than manifestations of tiny bits of energy that formed into what we call "matter." What's the whole point of arguing anyway in your universe? Your idea of "logic" seems different than mine, but why should it not be from an atheistic view?
"N.S. gave us reason, investigation and understanding. You claimed that only God could have gave us those, so i claimed N.S."
N.S. is natural science, I presume? Where did "N.S." get them? Again, you just take it all for granted by inventing an entity called N.S.
I ask where these things originated in the universe, and your answer is the universe itself? That is no answer. Christians can answer this question and refute your argument that we cannot know anything except through material means...
For just as matter in the universe is basically illusory (since all is energy), humans also consist of energy. Through this invisible means, we can know things that we cannot sense with our five senses. Since scientists cannot even explain how people know things through intuition, don't you think it's rather presumptuous to claim that if there is a supernatural being, we could not possibly know it? In fact, it is extremely unscientific to presume in such a way in the absence of proof.
Well i can't speak for all atheists, but i will speak for myself.
Firstly we must define what logic, order and reason are. If a universe exists, it must exist and work a certain way, so logic and reason are just our understanding of the universe and how it works. 1+1=2 in our universe. Nothing is needed to make that so, it just is. If you think it requires causation, please provide reason.
Do you really think there is order in the universe? On a small scale maybe, but large is chaotic.
I can't believe I'm trying to explain exactly what Bahnsen is saying simply because you either did not pay attention or did not understand his arguments.
There is no reason for the universe to "work" at all. No reason for fine tuning, for beauty, for consistent natural laws or anything, other than that there is a God who willed it to be so. I see a perfect machine and look for an explanation. You see the same thing and say, "Tell me why I should have to explain it. The burden is on you." LOL
I understood it, but it was a while ago that i watched it. I'm responding to your comments individually.
Why does it need reason. natural laws are exactly that, simply the way the universe works. Why do we need to do why the universe works the way it works?
You don't look for an explanation, you claim to know the answer without looking. I on the other hand admit that i don't know, and ask why i should even have to know.
We need to know whether there are absolute standards, and Christians are the only ones who have that claim. Otherwise, why should you (or anyone) dictate moral standards to anyone else when your standards are just energy flows inside your head. Why should that apply to anyone else?
You atheists are completely unable to deal with philosophical issues so you always resort to science, even though modern science would not exist without a prior philosophical movement toward scientific thought.
That movement was almost entirely thanks to Christian thinkers in the middle ages who were influenced by the Bible.
What makes you say I "claim to know the answer without looking"? I have thoroughly examined the claims of Scripture, comparing them with my own experience and all available evidence. Emotion may have been a reason for me coming to faith in Christ, but the evidence helps keep me in the faith.
Have you ever checked out the Christian Apologetics group on YT? Lots of good videos.
I very much agree that science was started by religious people and many/most scientists today are theistic. So what? Most people are theistic, especially at the time the movement began.
But you claim so much that you simply cannot know, other than through a group of writings by scientific illiterates, 1000s of years ago.
The evidence has lead science to where it is today, with the big bang and evolution. To claim anything more than what science has given us is mere speculation.
Even if I claim complete ignorance about the Universe, I see that scientists do not all agree on the Big Bang - plasma cosmologists, for instance. Just because the Big Bang is a consensus view does not make it correct. Look how often the scientific consensus has changed in the past! Interestingly, the Christian position has barely changed since the Apostle's Creed. Anyway, those are side issues.
I certainly don't have time to go into all the evidence for Christianity (see Apologetics Group).
As I've said, I've seen the apologetics groups, all of which has been debunked, look for that.
Almost all scientists agree that the big bang happened though, even if they don't agree on how. But lots of experiments are going on, like at CERN, so that find the truth about it.
Yes scientific consensus has changed, and that's what science is about. Finding the truth, not sticking to past speculations and not budging even though the evidence goes against it.
There are not absolute standards of morality, but cultural ones. If one goes against the standard of that culture they don't deserve to be in it as far as the culture thinks. This is what we see round the world, not one standard.
I deal with philosophical issues. So do most debating atheists i know. It just so happens that sometimes, to debate a point philosophically, you need to get into science. Why not resort to science?
Bahnsen addressed the argument that moral standards can be merely cultual standards, so I will not repeat it. I will, in the next post, repeat a post I made once in another forum regarding the inherent biases in the scientific community, whose word atheists apparently take as "gospel" truth. I suppose this is inevitable since they claim science as their only standard of truth...
Many factors go into making scientists some of the most biased people on Earth. This includes funding, bureaucracy (boards and committees consisting of OLDER scientists), systemic bias against risk-taking, tenure & career concerns, existing frameworks & paradigms, philosophical commitments (scientism), interpersonal infighting, compartmentalization/ specialization, and high personal stakes (PhD theses, Nobel prizes, etc).
Well what other standards is there. Science is simply a method of finding truth. Philosophy is great, but much of it on it's own is mere speculation. You need to test many of the claims, and that is science.
I wouldn't say scientists are biased, but the governing bodies funding them.
Anyway, if science cannot test something(religious claims) then they don't make it into science. Creationism for example.
Personal stakes are what push scientists to find truth.
Pandamonk, appreciate your points but I think your view of science for many reasons is a bit naive. All science rests upon epistemological assumptions. The reliability of our senses, of the unchanging nature of logic, the uniformity of nature. TAG exposes those assumptions and shows that unless you are assuming a Christian universe you could never get off the ground when doing science. The later Russel is awesome in this area.
He is very honest when he concludes that on atheist terms, science and all logical laws and systems are reduced to subjective psychological phenomenon. Also check out Feyereband. Among many insights into the politics of science he also explains how elastic and sometimes even arbitrary the term science is and that there is in practice actually no common integrating structure but actually just a collection of contradictory theories. interesting reading
It tries to expose it, but is full of assertions and assumptions. It asserts that through God we have objective standards, but never gives reason for us to think this is true. It also assumes that laws require a cause.
Until shown otherwise, those assumptions of science are unproblematic.
If relying on senses, logic etc is a problem, then relying on them to know God is also a problem. We cannot know God through any other means but the means available to us, which are the same for science.
Yeah,I know where your coming from but I don't think your realizing how many things your taking for granted when you talk about things like testing,(uniformity of nature)and truth(a valid epistemology by which you can asess truth claims) It just isn't anywhere near that simple. Google histories most important atheist philosopher,David Hume, on induction for instance. Bahnsen briefly touches on some of the problems I'm referring to in the last few videos of his classroom series.
The challenge is precisely to find a valid standard by which we can have knowledge. To just mystically plug in the term science whenever we need anchoring is insufficient and the equivalent of a God in the gaps argument. The ways in which your using it (and almost eveyone does) defy falsification and even definition, much less epistemological justification. I've given you three of the worlds most brilliant atheists to check out who will, I think, really challenge your thinking.
Yes i've read about induction before. I understand what the point is. I don't see how Christianity escapes this however, and Bahnsen never really provides any reason to believe it does. He simply asserts that it does.
your quick on the draw. The cosmetic answer is that God claims that he maintains an orderly universe where future events will behave like past ones. -But that's only one missing brick when attempting to construct an entire theory of knowledge, ie science
But can you know? That's the problem. I believe with all my heart and mind that we can trust that nature won't change too far from what science can know.
I don't plug science like a god of the gaps argument. Science is our(human) method of acquiring accurate knowledge. We all do it, all the time. So if we are going to know something, we will use science.
It's not perfect, no one claims it is, but it is our most accurate method. With or without a god makes no difference.
But your previous posts don't do anything to solve this. Anyway, i think i've had enough of this debate. I've debated this video with about 5 people all with roughly the same line of reasoning. It's boring answering the same questions and making the same arguments.
Im not debating you nor attempting to address intricate, involved philisophical problems in 500 words. I've only recomended you philosophers and scientists to read, all of whom are atheists.
Bahnsen's reply does not sufficiently answer the argument. Stein points this out numerous times, but Bahnsen ignores this and repeats the same point.
Atheists and even scientists don't take other scientists word as gospel. Look into the scientific method. It's only after observable evidence, repeated experimentation, peer review, etc etc, that it get's accepted by science. But even when it is accepted, it is tested over and over, and if there is any fault, it's thrown out or changed.
From an atheistic worldview that basically denies non-material reality, no philosophical issues can be debated. All is simply dismissed, taken for granted, or described as "conventional" or whatever fancy words you choose to use. This fact is demonstrated by the venereal Dawkins, whom nearly all would agree is almost completely ignorant with respect to philosophy.
Did I write "the venereal Dawkins"? Sorry, I meant "venerable."
Finally, Pandamonk69, with some regret I must thank you for demonstrating to all your willful ignorance and bias in claiming all the videos in the apologetics groups (including more than 570 in mine alone) have been debunked. Many of these are, in fact, only tangentially related to Christianity. However, we can't expect you to know that since you obviously haven't taken the time to look over them.
I failed to mention the obvious, but Dawkins is far and away the #1 spokesperson for atheism today. But hey, who needs philosophy anyway? As another atheist wrote on this same page, "I dont get all this philosophy crap. Lets go get high." Can we not conclude that in an atheist world, we would have pleasure-seeking and our technological gizmos for awhile, until it degenerates into chaos due to lack of moral & spiritual development?
I haven't seen any convincing arguments from Dennett.
Sorry I've neglected this video for a while. Don't think youtube told me about your responses. Anyway, what do you mean by "I haven't seen any convincing arguments from Dennett"? Regarding what? Dennett is an atheist philosopher. His main area of expertise is philosophy of mind.
He, along with Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are all very well known spokespeople for atheism today. There are many others however, but my favorite has to be Dennett. Ok you have maybe met a few atheists like that...
Look at their books. They do not address serious philosophical issues at all. They never tell you what metaphysical or epistemoogical views they are advancing. I get the sense they have not thought carefully about such matters.
What is wrong with relying on evidence rather than merely speculating? It may make less sense too you, but sacrificing chickens forto spirits does come from a non-scientific understanding.
I don't think Harris is all that great either, but probably a lot better than me.
"What is wrong with relying on evidence rather than merely speculating?"
Positivism engages in speculation. It depends on it.
Positivism refutes itself by claiming that "all intelligible knowledge-claims must be empirically verifiable." After all, that claim is not empirically verifiable.
Why not? The claim can be empirically verified by experience. If something is not empirically verified, can we rely on it? If so, how? If not, that verifies the claim.
From what i know about positivism, which isn't a lot, speculation is usually avoided.
This calls for a much longer discussion of epistemology than I have time for. The short answer is that there is no empirical means of verifying the claim that all knowledge-claims must be empirically verififiable."
Normative claims cannot be empirically verified, and epistemological claims are normative claims.
Also, universal claims cannot be empirically verified.
You have just claimed the same thing again, even though i have responded with a question. You seem pretty fond of baseless assertions. Maybe that is why you dislike positivism because they demand explanation and evidence.
So I'll ask again: If something is not empirically verified, can we rely on it? If so, how? If not, that verifies the claim.
"Anyway, what do you mean by 'I haven't seen any convincing arguments from Dennett"? Regarding what? Dennett is an atheist philosopher. His main area of expertise is philosophy of mind.'"
All you do is bring up the name Dennett and you think that somehow proves atheists are good at philosophy? LOL
Christian apologists not only are free of the biases of modern science, they also tend to have great expertise in philosophy than anyone. By the way, I am not defending YEC here.
I don't think it proves anything. Did i claim it did?
You said atheists reject philosophy, so i merely told of a prominent atheist philosopher.
That's great, but does philosophy actually get them anywhere? Did philosophy get them to the moon? Did it cure diseases?
I know Christian philosophy was the basis for modern science but science has moved so far and left it behind. What does philosophy really do for us today?
Atheism isn't a "world-view" in the you are describing. It is simply a lack of belief in God. He can do and be what ever he wants other than that. I don't really think he is incosistent anyway. Maybe athets are involved in debates in one way or another. They may not, like myself, be trained in philosophy or anything, but they(we) do debate many philosophical questions.
That might be why atheists appear, to you, to neglect philosophy, because you can only go so far. As soon as an atheist backs up what they say, with evidence, you hate it. Why? Are you scared of the truth?
LOL! I've responded every time an atheist presented so-called "evidence" against the existence of God. You will easily find reasoned responses from Christians throughout the Internet on virtually any question or topic. Why do you resort to this completely unfounded assumption about what I am supposedly thinking - that I "hate" something you've written? This is clearly a desperate attempt to try to win an argument.
I don't think it is possible to have evidence against the existence of a god. The only thing you can do is close all the gaps which theists fill with God. However, there are definiional arguments against the existence of standard definitions of God.
I'm ure you will find reasoned responses from Christians, Muslims, etc. What's your point?
I can't remember where i wrote that, but you must have come across as seeming to hate the idea i put across.
@iTeoglobite
Ur hero lost and was constantly deviating from the topic of the argument
itiswritten77 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gordon Stein is my hero! Check out Christopher Hitchens "The Portable Atheist".
iTroglobite 1 year ago
Comment removed
JanJiska 1 year ago
7:58 "Why are they so useful?"
A: Because we think they are.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
Comment removed
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
Test
JanJiska 2 years ago
Who on earth took time to mark the post "test" with a thumbs down?!!
ROFLMAO!
JanJiska 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God isnt stock?... is the same as the excuses that ive stated before... you can clearly see that god should not be questioned... and that does not stop skepticism here... every detail the christian mythology contradicts science and i know that science is inadequate.. but my point is theistic worldview offers more unitelligble idea like eternal and whatnot... not to mention ethical problems... is it my or your presuppostions were carried away?
sawsin69 2 years ago
So, what, are you denying that its possible for something to be outside of time?
God's timlessness is a traditional aspect of Christian theism. It is not an "excuse".
"...every detail the christian mythology contradicts science..."
How so?
"...but my point is theistic worldview offers more unitelligble idea like eternal..."
Eternal simply means not stuck in time. Surely you don't think that, i.e., the laws of logic are temporal?
"...not to mention ethical problems..."
Such as?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
(cont)
Does God exist and not exist at the same time (illogical)? No. The laws of logic apply to him outright. In the same way the laws of logic apply to the universe without a God (Atheistic world view). The Atheist doesn't account for the laws of logic but the Theist also doesn't account for the laws of logic. They are assumed by both parties. This is almost similar to saying that we need God to explain the existence of the universe. How then, do we explain God's existence? It's kinda similar
zeth321 3 years ago
"Does God exist and not exist at the same time (illogical)?"
He could, but that does not mean He does.
Although, I'd argue that while Christ was dead in the tomb, He both existed and did not exist at the same time.
"In the same way the laws of logic apply to the universe without a God..."
That does not explain their source. Only the theistic worldview can.
"They are assumed by both parties."
However, your side can only assume them if it temporarily adopts our worldview.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
God's omnipotence doesn't mean that God can contradict His nature, Only that God has no restrictions outside His own being. God is still logical by nature otherwise truth would be meaninglessness.
KixDanis 2 years ago
Why can God not contradict his own nature? If that is the case then surely it is only because god has arbitrarily decreed it.
Or is there a higher power which god answers to?
JanJiska 2 years ago
If he could contradict his own nature then he could make an instance where he would not be God.
But this of course is impossible since God can never not be God.
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
I grant that it is impossible but not for the reason that you think.
Where is the bible does it say that this is impossible for God? I thought it merely said he was all powerful so why would this be impossible?
JanJiska 2 years ago
Scripture tells us God is perfect, absolute, all knowing and so on. So if God is all of this, then it would be impossible for a perfect being to be self contradictory since self contradictory implies imperfection and not being absolute.
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
God might WANT to do something such as contradict his nature etc for reasons you will never understand because you are moronic excrement compared to God.
Perhaps being perfect requires self contradiction and you are incorrect?
Perhaps someone will pray for him to self contradict and he will grant that prayer.
Perhaps God will change what is in scripture or the meaning of 'perfect'.
etc.
Plenty of reasons why he might do it if he wanted (if he was not fictional, of course).
JanJiska 2 years ago
One of the things I've noticed is that critics of Christianity completely distort and butcher what God is in order to disprove Him.
God is infinite, unchanging, all powerful, all knowing, and all perfect.
Someone cannot ask God to violate his own nature because he is unchanging and consistent with his nature. And elaborate how being perfect requires self contradiction. Man afterall knows finitely and imperfectly but the cause of all knowledge knows infinitely and perfectly.
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
"God is infinite, unchanging, all powerful, all knowing, and all perfect"
If God is all powerful then he can do anything including create a universe in which he is not God - QED.
If he cannot do this then he is not all powerful - QED
Either God is all of these things because he chooses to be, in which case he can change any of them at anytime for any reason. Or there is a higher power which prevents him doing this in which case he is not all powerful.
JanJiska 2 years ago
In terms of all powerful I mean something that can effect a change in another, that is, what can cause something else to be or not be in some way. It does not have power to do what is impossible. The impossible cannot be such as God not being God. But rather has the power to make come to be whatever can come to be.
Essentially a supernatural being must, by logical necessity, operate in concert with his nature. In other words, God could not violate his own nature.
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
So by "all powerful" you mean "not all powerful but able to control some things".
"It does not have power to do what is impossible"
God has done "the impossible" many many times.
I really think you are struggling here to fit a square peg into a round hole. To justify something which makes no sense.
".... In other words, God could not violate his own nature. "
Why? What is the force that stops God doing what he wants? If it the law of logic then God could change it.
JanJiska 2 years ago
He is all powerful in that He is able to do anything His nature permits him to do. Not all Christians know this but God can't do everything. Can't lie, cannot not be God
"God has done the impossible many times".miracles? There is no logical reason why an omnipotent and omniscient God could not part the Red Sea, turn water into wine. In Christian theology God is the Creator of the universe and the master of all of its laws. He transcends space and time and is not restricted by physical laws
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
"He is all powerful in that He is able to do anything His nature permits him to do. "
Who defines and enforces this nature? Again, he is not all powerful if he does not have the power to do all.
"Not all Christians know this but God can't do everything. Can't lie, cannot not be God"
Then how do you know? What makes you think you are right and other Christians are wrong?
JanJiska 2 years ago
Omnipotence means he can do all that which is consistent with His nature.
Say God could do everthing. So if God is all powerful can He make himself not all powerful? It would not make sense it would violate the law of non contradiction. So within Christianity we would certainly say God is logical and that he would not do that which is illogical because he cannot, because He is not self refuting which we can see form the revelation of scripture.
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
Where did you get that definition of Omnipotence, please?
"It would not make sense it would violate the law of non contradiction"
So? God could just change the law of non contradiction if he wanted to.
If there is a limit to God's power there must be something which enforces this limit. What is it? Please address this in your reply as I have asked it several times now.
"...see form the revelation of scripture"
Please supply an exact reference for this.
JanJiska 2 years ago
If omnipotence means the ability to do anything and everything possible then it is inherently self contradictory and self defeating.
His very nature enforces his limits such as not being able to lie, cheat, steal, not be God.
God cannot change LNC or any logical absolutes. They were not brought into existence, since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too. And if I was so bold as to inquire...how do you account for logical absolutes?
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
I would be very happy to explain the actual nature of logical absolutes if you would be as kind as to answer the questions contained in my previous post.
Mainly I am asking what enforces these rules on your God (such as what stops him changing logical absolutes) and where in the bible you have found the references.
Also, where you got your definition of Omnipotence from.
JanJiska 2 years ago
for starters
God Is Infinite - Jer. 23:24; Psalm 147:5
God Does Not Change - Num. 23:19; Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; James 1:17
16.God Is Eternal - Psalm 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17
(So since scripture tells us God is changeless,infinite,eternal, He would not be able to change his nature or LA's because they reflect who He is)
And yaayuth, please say how an atheistic worldview can account for LA's.
What do you mean where I got it...I deduced God's omnipotence on the basis that infinite abilities is imp
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
Aha - interesting. The bible specifies several properties of God. These properties contradict and therefore cannot be correct so rather than accept that this does not make sense you change the meaning of selected words?
I think that this shows the true nature of theistic research. Establish a conclusion, research until you find it - ignore\discredit any evidence which points to a different conclusion as it must be wrong (due to the fact you already know the correct conclusion).
JanJiska 2 years ago
Of course saying they contradict doesn't make it so. What properties contradict?
And just on a side note, there are no Bible contradictions only alleged contradictions (which actually argue for its authenticity).
In the end theism is the only adequate world view. All others are self defeating or unaffirmable. Theism has found a firm ground in existence for the conclusion that God exists.
and please say how an atheistic worldview accounts for logical absolutes
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
"What properties contradict"
The ones which we have been discussing all through this thread - All powerful V eternal etc.
"And just on a side note, there are no Bible contradictions only alleged contradictions"
Rubbish - even the Gospels contradict each other.
"All others are self defeating or unaffirmable"
Please list these and explain your conclusion for each one.
"...that God exists."
So not necessarily the Christian one?
JanJiska 2 years ago
There's deism, pantheism, atheism...and so on
Let's take atheism
Atheism provides no solution to basic metaphysical questions regarding the existence of the universe or the origin of personality and the actualization of the world process. It ultimately asserts that something comes from nothing, that portentials actualize themselves, and that matter generated mind. To me, it seems much more reasonable to believe in God.
now...how do you account for LAs?
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
"It ultimately asserts that something comes from nothing"
It makes no such assertion.
"how do you account for LAs"
Not so fast - you have not explained why the gospels contradict each other.
Or why your religion is any more plausible than the thousands of others that are around or any other one which might make up.
JanJiska 2 years ago
The gospels do not contradict each other.
The authors include different, but not contradictory, details.
You have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter.that's hardly uncorroborated
Second they were eyewhitness testimony. As I said there are only alleged contradictions which actually argue for its authenticity because they called it as they saw it. They didn't get together and try to put this thing together. And you get that when you get independent testimony.
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
JanJiska 2 years ago
verses
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
Sheesh, dude. Aren't you capable of reading them for yourself? Or is that discouraged by the church?!
At lunch I will look some of them up and post them for you. Send me your address and I will come over and scroll for you as well, ok?
JanJiska 2 years ago
I could elaborate more on the other difficulties...but it's tedious, and the character count doesn't help either.
And if you truly want these alleged contradictions answered, I suggest looking online or reading the Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman Geisler. No doubt it would surely save your time and my time with these youtube comments. LA's?
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
"I could elaborate more on the other difficulties...but it's tedious, and the character count doesn't help either.
"
Well I managed it. Anyway there is no need. You said there were no contradictions and I have shown several, no elaboration needed.
"I suggest looking online or reading the Big Book of Bible Difficulties"
I suggest you read the bible.
"LA's"
Not so fast. We have proved biblical contradictions but what about the thousands of other religions - why are they wrong?
JanJiska 2 years ago
"I have shown several"
Nope. Only shown several bible difficulties
"I suggest you read the bible"
I concur. I'll read the bible while you read the Big Book of Bible Difficulties
First, religions contradict each other; therefore, they cannot all be true.
Ex. In Mormonism there are many gods, in Christianity there is one. Concering Christianity, you have fulfilled Prophecy concerning Jesus. The Claims and Deeds of Christ. Christ's resurrection
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
is it possible pink unicorns exist?
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
just passing through and saw you don't understand the "contradictions" listed.
Actually the nonuniformity of the books is why scholars hold it to such high historical standard.
If you and I both experienced an event, and then were called before a judge to testify about the event our stories would be similar but not exactly the same. If they were exactly the same then the judge would suspect that we corroborated our stories. It is the small variances that actually verify the authenticity.
thervltn 2 years ago
Yeah sure - the fact that 30 years after an event you write an account which completely differs in key points to what I write a hundred years later means that we were both telling the truth and everything happened as described ... by both of us ... even though it was different.
I think that these stories do not fit together and you are struggling to twise them until they fit to conform with what you have already decided to believe.
JanJiska 2 years ago
key points? If you look at the places that the gospels do not disagree at all you find a core message that is revolutionary. Jesus was the confessed messiah by his disciples, he performed miracles and healed people, he forgave sins, he prophesied his own death and resurrection, he died on a Roman cross, and he was raised bodily from the dead. Doesn't their agreement on an absolute core of central beliefs suggest they got the basics right precisely because they were reporting on the same events?
thervltn 2 years ago
P.S. Those are the words of Daniel B. Wallace, PH.D. Who is actually one of the world's leading experts in ancient Greek, and foremost authorities on textual criticism.
Your statement is correct, exact stories suggest collusion and would discredit the authenticity of an event, in history and in modern schools of thought. The bible is a book revealing God in his ways, man in his need, and God's provision to meet man in his need. I think you will find it accomplishes that without disagreement.
thervltn 2 years ago
But where they disagree (e.g. whether Jesus bodily ascended) are important points which should stick in the mind, things like who was there and how they got in should be easy to remember.
How could they get so many details wrong and still not be discounted?
Simple, people have already made their minds up. No one expects word for word matches but to have as many details wrong as they have (including whether zombies rose from the grave) is absurd.
JanJiska 2 years ago
They do not disagree on the important points (e.g. whether Jesus bodily ascended) The only place I am aware of that could possibly be construed as a disagreement on that matter would be Paul's letter to the Corinth to which he explains in chapter 15 that our heavenly bodies will differ from our earthly bodies (v.38 the body God has chosen v.36 like the former v.39-41 yet different v.42 imperishable v.49 in the image of the heavenly)
thervltn 2 years ago
I am sorry. You are correct they do not disagree on whether he ascended. I misremembered.
They disagree on where and when it happened and some do not mention it at all:
JanJiska 2 years ago
v. 20-34 Speaks of Christ raising from the dead so that all will be made alive v.35-50 concerns the dead on earth and our resurrected bodies v.51-58 talks of those who will not yet be dead when the rapture takes place.
thervltn 2 years ago
Mark 16:14-19 - Jesus ascends while he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem
Matthew 28:16-20 - Jesus ascension isnt mentioned at all, but Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee
Luke 24:50-51 - Jesus ascends outisde, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection
John - Nothing about Jesus ascension is mentioned
Acts 1:9-12 - Jesus ascends at least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet
JanJiska 2 years ago
Mark 16 9-20 are not part of the original but an addition added later on. The 2 most trustworthy versions of the NT end abruptly at verse 8. Many do not know this but anyone with a study bible will see this in the commentary.
So were left with Luke and Acts, which interestingly enough have the same author and were one book. The brief ascension story in Luke is written in a different hand and is believed by scholars to have been added when Luke-Acts was separated into the two books.
thervltn 2 years ago
We are left with one ascension story.
I am by no means an expert but I would be happy to carry on a more lengthy discussion with you via email if you are genuinely interested in a search for the answers to some more of the obstacles that have troubled you with Christianity.
thervltn 2 years ago
Start with easy ones:
How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations
When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peters house.
What time was it?
Mat 28:1 Mar 16:2 L 24:1 J 20:1
Who was there?
J 20:1 Mat 28:1 Mar 16: L 24:10
JanJiska 2 years ago
You claimed the gospels contradict so naturally I asked for the verses. And that second comment made me lol but don't get me wrong I am flattered that you took time out of your lunch...Anywaaays...
Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes, and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? There is no discrepancy because there are 14 including Abraham.
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
Show where the contradictions are? I would challenge you to show 1 of them. You cannot because they cannot exist.
viper2808 2 years ago
Oh and the so called force. If God had the ability to violate his own nature then he would be ever changing and self contradicting.
This non-self-violation truth would be a characteristic of God: the inability of self-contradiction.
Take your example about God creating a universe with no God...God is eternal by nature, He could not destroy himself and thus violate his attribute of eternality
RazzleMcDazzle989 2 years ago
"This is almost similar to saying that we need God to explain the existence of the universe. How then, do we explain God's existence? It's kinda similar"
Indeed it is, as the answer to both of your objections is that God is eternal.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
eternal... is like saying "i dont know the answer so il make it eternal so they can stop arguing"
sawsin69 2 years ago
Comment removed
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Or that God is imaginary?
Bear in mind that even if there is a super natural power which created the universe then there is no reason why it would be the Christian god. There are thousands of gods which have been worshipped throughout history. Christianity is not a special case.
JanJiska 2 years ago
Why does he keep on talking about "accounting for the laws of logic"? They are axiomatic. AXIOMATIC. Asking someone to LOGICALLY PROVE the LAWS OF LOGIC is just silly. Those laws are assumed out of hand, because they are needed for any thought to be possible. Bahnsen claims laws of logic exist because God made them, and that that is somehow correct because the laws of logic need to be shown to have a creator. Well, how can God HIMSELF exist without the laws of logic already being true?
zeth321 3 years ago
"Axiomatic" means nothing more than "assumed", and it does not tell us why they exist.
"...how can God HIMSELF exist without the laws of logic already being true?"
God has existed eternally, with the laws of logic proceedng from Him.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
eternal... is like saying "i dont know the answer so il make it eternal so they can stop arguing"
sawsin69 2 years ago
Not really. Its just saying that God isn't stuck in time like we are.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Bahnsen makes a strong case that atheists in Stein's tradition (materialism & radical empiricism) undermine the foundations of logic & knowledge through their presuppositions.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
_Modus ponens_ is not empirically verifiable. Is _modus ponens_ reliable?
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Hmm, it depends on what you are arguing. I don't however think positivism is against Modus ponens.
I think the point is, if you claim something, you better be able to back it up with empirical evidence. So if you make a Modus ponens argument, it will be backed up with whatever you are arguing.
One example of Modus ponens:
"If you buy today, I will give you a 10% discount. You have agreed to buy today, so I will reduce the price by 10%". The empirical evidence comes with paying.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
The point is that _modus ponens_ cannot be empirically verified. You asked for an example of something that was reliable but not empirically verified.
I have already pointed out that positivism is self-refuting, since the claim that "all intelligible knowledge-claims must be empirically verifiable" is not empirically verifiable. Why do you believe in a self-refuting philsoophy?
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
What about it cannot be empirically verified? Isn't the mere fact that it is reliable(to the real world), empirical verification? What I'm saying is, from whatever comes out of modus ponens, is empirical verification of modus ponens, ie. I offer 10% discount if you buy now. You buy now, so i give you 10% discount. The empirical verification is that you have spent 10% less.
What is non-empirically verifiable about that claim? Experience verifies it.
Who says I'm a positivist?
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Nope, that's not empirical verification of _modus ponens_.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
So experience isn't empirical? I think you need to have a look at a dictionary.
If we say something will happen in the real world with modus ponens(If this then that), from the conditions set, and it does happen that way, does that not empirically verify it? If not, then you have misdefined empirical verification.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
The example you provide is not verification of _modus ponens_.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
What example? The 10% discount. Yes it does. It's a modus ponens claim, which is empirically verified.
It doesn't matter anyway. You have made no arguement, just unbased assertions about empirical verification, and i have asked many times and simply reserved assertions from you.
No point carrying on this debate.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
But your example does not verify _modus ponens_ generally. And if _modus ponens_ cannot be proven generally, then it cannot be used to make inferences.
I think Bahnsen has presented more than enough argument. Thanks for playing!
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
It doesn't verify it generally, but on a case by case basis it can be verified. It can also be wrong on a case by case basis.
Modus ponens isn't something that can be verified on its on. Same as saying "dog". "Dog" cannot be verified on it's own. Now if you use "dog" like, the dog wags it's tail, it can be verified with empirical evidence, but on its own, it's simply a name. Modus ponens is simply a name for an argument form. The argument form can be empirically verified with use however.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
"It doesn't verify it generally..."
Which was my point.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
But that's the same as the simple word "Dog" cannot be verified generally. That was my point. A name, or rule, cannot be verified without use. Nothing can. I a car sits in the drive, you can make many claims about it, but you won't know if it actually works until you use it(empirical verification). Modus ponens can be empirically verified with use.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but I don't know any philosopher who can take this line of argument seriously.
No, _modus ponens_ cannot be verified empirically, as I have already explained. I really don't know how to make the painfully obvious any simpler.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
It can if it is used. Why have modus ponen and not use it? The argument type can be verified with use.
I don't know any philosopher that would take yours seriously either.
You have not explained, merely asserted. If modus ponens is used, which it must be, then the results can be verified empirically. The form of argument(call modus ponens) can be verified empirically.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
You concede that the general validity of _modus ponens_ cannot be verified empirically.
But that is the same as saying that the validity of _modus ponens_ cannot be verified empirically.
The validity of _modus ponens_ is a general proposition. _Modus ponens_ is either generally valid, or not valid at all.
Any philosopher would tell you the same.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
I think you are taking a few words from all the i have said, and ignored the rest. You are actually putting words in my mouth.
To be honest i don't know or care anymore what you are trying to argue. All you are trying to do is give one case that cannot be empirically verified, but you wont read or accept anything i say other than a few words which you think is my concesion.
I will continue to argue if you read my arguments and rebut/offer your own.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Ok, You claim that I "asked for an example of something that was reliable but not empirically verified."
How do you know modus ponens is generally reliable? Because you have used it or seen it used, and verified the results empirically. Without that, you could not know it was reliable.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
I really think that Bahnsen has adequately addressed these issues in this debate. I suggest that you listen to it again.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
I don't think bahnsen addresses this point. He argues that the laws of logic require a basis and that the only logical basis is the Christian God.
Stein Argues that logic just is, and doesn't require a basis. Neither really gives good enough reason for their position(that it does or doesn't require basis).
Bahnsen also argues roughly "why, in a random world, do the laws of logic apply repeatedly". My response is, "the world isn't random".
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Also, the laws of logic are not universal. They do not apply to the very small, quantum world.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Also, i found this:
'Where did the absolute Laws of nature[logic, science, moral, etc] come from?'
'"Laws" of nature are artifacts of 19th century science. Regularity in nature, however, is simply how existence is - you can't exist unless you exist as something rather than something else. This necessitates regularity.'
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
How so?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 3 years ago
You can't exists unless you exist as something rather than something else. Because it's simply not possible any other way.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Comment removed
sawsin69 2 years ago
So back to modus ponens. If one has never seen modus ponens, then one would not accept it as reliable without seeing it used. Once it has been used, one would have experience of it and this would be empirical verification. The more it is used, the more empirical verification and the more one accepts it as reliable.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
In terms covered in this debate:
Positivism commits the Carackers in the Pantry fallacy.
...and...
Positivism commits the Pretended Neutrality Fallacy.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Examples?
Stein says that las of logic are "conventions."
Then he tries to say they are just patterns that have predictive value.
Dumb. Ignorant. Stupid. Laughable.
But, honestly, I'm not going to discuss the problems with nominalism here in itty-bitty sound bites. If you don't see the problems with Stein's position, you should listen more carefully to Bahnsen.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Greg Bahnsen appears to be a one trick pony. His only argument is one from "why do the laws of logic exist" and then declaring that they can only exist with a god... a complete non sequitar. I wonder if he has any other points to offer because a) this point is merely playing with language and b) an unanswered question is not evidence for a seperate proposition. Dont anyone fall for this.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
So you CAN account for abstract things in a completely material universe, as an atheist? If yes, how so?
BassP86 3 years ago
Re read my comment. I am not talking about what we can or can not account for. MY point is simply that he is using something we cant account for as proof for a claim that he wants to make. If you wish to reply to my points then do so, but do not reply to points i havent made.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Sure, it seems may seem like Dr. Bahnsen is a "one-trick pony" if you want to believe the worst about him. But is not really his fault that Dr. Stein keeps making the same mistake over & over again.
Stein does not want to be logical in any meaningful sense. Bahnsen is well within his rights to pummel Stein for this failing. Debate itself hinges on the use of logic.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
I say no such mistakes or lack of logic on the atheist side. If there is any maybe you should be more specific instead of just declaring it to be so and running away.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
I'm sorry, I thought it was clear from context. Stein repeatedly says things about logic that that are not just untrue, but laughable. Each time, Bahnsen replies by correcting Stein's error.
I'm not sure how this pattern outs Bahnsen in a bad light.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Examples? You are just declaring things laughable and untrue and not backing it up with anything.
irishmauddib 3 years ago
Bahnsen does claim that Stein has no rational explanation for objective logical standard, but this is because Stein says they're conventional. However, to make this claim, and to claim its actually true, you have to have an actually true logical standard. If not, then that view point is only a convention, thus the argument is self-refuting.
brad78ton 3 years ago
Bahnsen accuses Stein of not giving an explanation/account of the laws of logic, but to simply say "god did it" explains nothing, as Stein claimed earlier.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Actually, it explains everything. We are saying these laws were made by a higher intelligence.
Suppose that figures in a computer game somehow gained self-awareness, as in the "Matrix" movies. They might speculate there is a higher intelligence that created the environment in which they live. Perfectly logical, and in this case it would be correct.
mayartay 3 years ago
But it doesn't explain anything. We have an unknown(where laws come from) and I attempt to give account/explanation for these laws or admit that i just don't know. You replace one unknown with an unknowable. God is so far out of our understanding.
To explain the unknown with another unkown is silly. It's like if you asked me how a car works. I don't know exactly so i say "you push your foot on the pedal a little bit of magic happens and the wheels turn." Does that explain anything? No
gordthelord12 3 years ago
God is not an unknown. As Bahnsen is saying, each of us does know God in our heart of hearts. From him we received the ability to reason, to investigate, and to understand this world. As God is the Creator, we also have the ability to invent and create things because we are made in His image just as the Bible proclaims. So no, we Christians are not saying that some unknown and unknowable entity created everything.
If outspoken atheists would only take a simple course in basic theology ...
mayartay 3 years ago
If God can be known, then science could find him. But it is so often argued that God is supernatural and therefore outwith our understanding.
Why is there so much arguement over what God is, and what he wants, if we all know him in our heart of hearts. I don't know him. You must give evidence of us all knowing God before that can ever be accepted.
I think we gain the ability to reason, investigate and understand from natural seletion. If we couldn't, we wouldn't have survived.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
The thing is, everyone has their own subjectional view of what God is. You say we can know God, but many others say we cannot. They say we cannot because they have been in debates where the only way out, for them, is to admit we cannot know God.
If we can know God, then he is natural and must adhere to all natural laws(requires a cause). He can also be tested and is within the realms of science. If he doesn't have to adhere to the laws, then he is supernatural and outwith our understanding.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Absolutely nothing you've said lines up with the Christian view of God. As I said, learn a little theology so you will at least know the position that you are vainly attempting to refute.
Also, right in these videos Bahnsen gives evidence of everyone knowing God. In a material universe devoid of intelligence, there would be no laws, logic, or reason.
God exists in all that which you simply take for granted.
mayartay 3 years ago
Your crazy to think that. I've debated Christians for 4 years, and have met many many who have claimed exactly what I've said.
Just because it doesn't line up with your own subjectional view, doesn't mean that it doesn't line up with anyones'. I have learned a little theology.
That is not evidence of everyone knowing God in the slightest. That is an argument for why God might exist, but it's essentially a "god of the gaps" argument.
We are intelligence, so i agree, but no need for God.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Only the most ignorant of Christians would say that if God can be known, science could find him. Jesus said, "God is spirit."(John 4:24). There is no debate among Christians whether God is supernatural. We do not all have a subjective view since the Christian view is very well defined - see the historic creeds, for example. We cannot know God fully for he is so much greater than us, but we can know something about God by his beautiful, orderly creation and by his revelation in Scripture.
mayartay 3 years ago
Also, no true Christian would say that God must be natural since we can know him. Man himself is not only natural (body) but also supernatural (spirit), as the Bible clearly teaches. You're the only one here arguing from an entirely subjective viewpoint. But that is typical of atheists to make things up about Christianity as they go along. Anything to try and win an argument.
mayartay 3 years ago
Also typical is the fact that you failed to respond to my argument about how logic, order, and intelligence could exist in a completely random universe. Funny how nearly every time one argues with an atheist, the answer seems to be "natural selection." However, n.s. has little to do with this debate, for it all begins with perfect fine tuning that allows quantum particles and atoms to exist in the first place. You can provide no basis for order, morality or logic in a godless universe.
mayartay 3 years ago
You never made an argument about logic, order, etc. All you said was "In a material universe devoid of intelligence, there would be no laws, logic, or reason." That's not a reasoned argument but an assertion.
Here's my asserted answer: In a material universe devoid of God, laws, logic and reason exist.
When have i ever said the universe is completely random?
N.S. gave us reason, investigation and understanding. You claimed that only God could have gave us those, so i claimed N.S.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
The universe doesn't exist on fine tuning. If the universe had expanded perfectly, from the big bang, then it wouldn't have existed as it is now. It is through the imperfections that particles could bunch to form matter, which bunched to form atoms, and so on to huge galaxies.
I only claimed n.s. for our understanding and intelligence.
And instead of making empty claims that i can't provide basis, why not ask what my basis is?
Define order, morality and logic.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
He certainly is supernatural. But if he is outwith science, then he is also outwith our understanding. We cannot possibly know God. That is my claim.
You are answering an unknown with an unknowable, therefore ending all enquiry. That's my point. We cannot know how he did it, why he did it, etc etc. God of the gaps ends all scientific enquiry and puts us back in the dark ages. It answers no questions, and allows no more questioning. It's a blackhole of science.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
"And instead of making empty claims that I can't provide basis, why not ask what my basis is?"
Please be my guest and explain from an atheistic viewpoint WHY there is logic, order, and reason in this universe. After all, in your universe, we are nothing more than manifestations of tiny bits of energy that formed into what we call "matter." What's the whole point of arguing anyway in your universe? Your idea of "logic" seems different than mine, but why should it not be from an atheistic view?
mayartay 3 years ago
"N.S. gave us reason, investigation and understanding. You claimed that only God could have gave us those, so i claimed N.S."
N.S. is natural science, I presume? Where did "N.S." get them? Again, you just take it all for granted by inventing an entity called N.S.
I ask where these things originated in the universe, and your answer is the universe itself? That is no answer. Christians can answer this question and refute your argument that we cannot know anything except through material means...
mayartay 3 years ago
For just as matter in the universe is basically illusory (since all is energy), humans also consist of energy. Through this invisible means, we can know things that we cannot sense with our five senses. Since scientists cannot even explain how people know things through intuition, don't you think it's rather presumptuous to claim that if there is a supernatural being, we could not possibly know it? In fact, it is extremely unscientific to presume in such a way in the absence of proof.
mayartay 3 years ago
Well i can't speak for all atheists, but i will speak for myself.
Firstly we must define what logic, order and reason are. If a universe exists, it must exist and work a certain way, so logic and reason are just our understanding of the universe and how it works. 1+1=2 in our universe. Nothing is needed to make that so, it just is. If you think it requires causation, please provide reason.
Do you really think there is order in the universe? On a small scale maybe, but large is chaotic.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
I can't believe I'm trying to explain exactly what Bahnsen is saying simply because you either did not pay attention or did not understand his arguments.
There is no reason for the universe to "work" at all. No reason for fine tuning, for beauty, for consistent natural laws or anything, other than that there is a God who willed it to be so. I see a perfect machine and look for an explanation. You see the same thing and say, "Tell me why I should have to explain it. The burden is on you." LOL
mayartay 3 years ago
I understood it, but it was a while ago that i watched it. I'm responding to your comments individually.
Why does it need reason. natural laws are exactly that, simply the way the universe works. Why do we need to do why the universe works the way it works?
You don't look for an explanation, you claim to know the answer without looking. I on the other hand admit that i don't know, and ask why i should even have to know.
Anyway this is my answer: Big bang
Now we are on the same level
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
We need to know whether there are absolute standards, and Christians are the only ones who have that claim. Otherwise, why should you (or anyone) dictate moral standards to anyone else when your standards are just energy flows inside your head. Why should that apply to anyone else?
You atheists are completely unable to deal with philosophical issues so you always resort to science, even though modern science would not exist without a prior philosophical movement toward scientific thought.
mayartay 3 years ago
That movement was almost entirely thanks to Christian thinkers in the middle ages who were influenced by the Bible.
What makes you say I "claim to know the answer without looking"? I have thoroughly examined the claims of Scripture, comparing them with my own experience and all available evidence. Emotion may have been a reason for me coming to faith in Christ, but the evidence helps keep me in the faith.
Have you ever checked out the Christian Apologetics group on YT? Lots of good videos.
mayartay 3 years ago
I very much agree that science was started by religious people and many/most scientists today are theistic. So what? Most people are theistic, especially at the time the movement began.
But you claim so much that you simply cannot know, other than through a group of writings by scientific illiterates, 1000s of years ago.
The evidence has lead science to where it is today, with the big bang and evolution. To claim anything more than what science has given us is mere speculation.
Yes
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Even if I claim complete ignorance about the Universe, I see that scientists do not all agree on the Big Bang - plasma cosmologists, for instance. Just because the Big Bang is a consensus view does not make it correct. Look how often the scientific consensus has changed in the past! Interestingly, the Christian position has barely changed since the Apostle's Creed. Anyway, those are side issues.
I certainly don't have time to go into all the evidence for Christianity (see Apologetics Group).
mayartay 3 years ago
As I've said, I've seen the apologetics groups, all of which has been debunked, look for that.
Almost all scientists agree that the big bang happened though, even if they don't agree on how. But lots of experiments are going on, like at CERN, so that find the truth about it.
Yes scientific consensus has changed, and that's what science is about. Finding the truth, not sticking to past speculations and not budging even though the evidence goes against it.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Wow. Historians of science would tend not to agree with such sweeping statements.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Why not. Science changes all the time because the evidence leads it to.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
There are not absolute standards of morality, but cultural ones. If one goes against the standard of that culture they don't deserve to be in it as far as the culture thinks. This is what we see round the world, not one standard.
I deal with philosophical issues. So do most debating atheists i know. It just so happens that sometimes, to debate a point philosophically, you need to get into science. Why not resort to science?
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Bahnsen addressed the argument that moral standards can be merely cultual standards, so I will not repeat it. I will, in the next post, repeat a post I made once in another forum regarding the inherent biases in the scientific community, whose word atheists apparently take as "gospel" truth. I suppose this is inevitable since they claim science as their only standard of truth...
mayartay 3 years ago
Many factors go into making scientists some of the most biased people on Earth. This includes funding, bureaucracy (boards and committees consisting of OLDER scientists), systemic bias against risk-taking, tenure & career concerns, existing frameworks & paradigms, philosophical commitments (scientism), interpersonal infighting, compartmentalization/ specialization, and high personal stakes (PhD theses, Nobel prizes, etc).
I made some minor changes to my original post.
mayartay 3 years ago
Well what other standards is there. Science is simply a method of finding truth. Philosophy is great, but much of it on it's own is mere speculation. You need to test many of the claims, and that is science.
I wouldn't say scientists are biased, but the governing bodies funding them.
Anyway, if science cannot test something(religious claims) then they don't make it into science. Creationism for example.
Personal stakes are what push scientists to find truth.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Pandamonk, appreciate your points but I think your view of science for many reasons is a bit naive. All science rests upon epistemological assumptions. The reliability of our senses, of the unchanging nature of logic, the uniformity of nature. TAG exposes those assumptions and shows that unless you are assuming a Christian universe you could never get off the ground when doing science. The later Russel is awesome in this area.
a5dr3 3 years ago
He is very honest when he concludes that on atheist terms, science and all logical laws and systems are reduced to subjective psychological phenomenon. Also check out Feyereband. Among many insights into the politics of science he also explains how elastic and sometimes even arbitrary the term science is and that there is in practice actually no common integrating structure but actually just a collection of contradictory theories. interesting reading
a5dr3 3 years ago
It tries to expose it, but is full of assertions and assumptions. It asserts that through God we have objective standards, but never gives reason for us to think this is true. It also assumes that laws require a cause.
Until shown otherwise, those assumptions of science are unproblematic.
If relying on senses, logic etc is a problem, then relying on them to know God is also a problem. We cannot know God through any other means but the means available to us, which are the same for science.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Yeah,I know where your coming from but I don't think your realizing how many things your taking for granted when you talk about things like testing,(uniformity of nature)and truth(a valid epistemology by which you can asess truth claims) It just isn't anywhere near that simple. Google histories most important atheist philosopher,David Hume, on induction for instance. Bahnsen briefly touches on some of the problems I'm referring to in the last few videos of his classroom series.
a5dr3 3 years ago
The challenge is precisely to find a valid standard by which we can have knowledge. To just mystically plug in the term science whenever we need anchoring is insufficient and the equivalent of a God in the gaps argument. The ways in which your using it (and almost eveyone does) defy falsification and even definition, much less epistemological justification. I've given you three of the worlds most brilliant atheists to check out who will, I think, really challenge your thinking.
a5dr3 3 years ago
Yes i've read about induction before. I understand what the point is. I don't see how Christianity escapes this however, and Bahnsen never really provides any reason to believe it does. He simply asserts that it does.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
your quick on the draw. The cosmetic answer is that God claims that he maintains an orderly universe where future events will behave like past ones. -But that's only one missing brick when attempting to construct an entire theory of knowledge, ie science
a5dr3 3 years ago
He claims, but can we really trust it?
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Look in to it. I believe with all my heart, soul and mind that we can. The videos on this page are a good place to start.
a5dr3 3 years ago
But can you know? That's the problem. I believe with all my heart and mind that we can trust that nature won't change too far from what science can know.
I don't plug science like a god of the gaps argument. Science is our(human) method of acquiring accurate knowledge. We all do it, all the time. So if we are going to know something, we will use science.
It's not perfect, no one claims it is, but it is our most accurate method. With or without a god makes no difference.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Then we're right back to where we started. Please see my previous responses
a5dr3 3 years ago
But your previous posts don't do anything to solve this. Anyway, i think i've had enough of this debate. I've debated this video with about 5 people all with roughly the same line of reasoning. It's boring answering the same questions and making the same arguments.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Im not debating you nor attempting to address intricate, involved philisophical problems in 500 words. I've only recomended you philosophers and scientists to read, all of whom are atheists.
a5dr3 3 years ago
Bahnsen's reply does not sufficiently answer the argument. Stein points this out numerous times, but Bahnsen ignores this and repeats the same point.
Atheists and even scientists don't take other scientists word as gospel. Look into the scientific method. It's only after observable evidence, repeated experimentation, peer review, etc etc, that it get's accepted by science. But even when it is accepted, it is tested over and over, and if there is any fault, it's thrown out or changed.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
From an atheistic worldview that basically denies non-material reality, no philosophical issues can be debated. All is simply dismissed, taken for granted, or described as "conventional" or whatever fancy words you choose to use. This fact is demonstrated by the venereal Dawkins, whom nearly all would agree is almost completely ignorant with respect to philosophy.
mayartay 3 years ago
What about the philosopher Daniel Dennett?
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Did I write "the venereal Dawkins"? Sorry, I meant "venerable."
Finally, Pandamonk69, with some regret I must thank you for demonstrating to all your willful ignorance and bias in claiming all the videos in the apologetics groups (including more than 570 in mine alone) have been debunked. Many of these are, in fact, only tangentially related to Christianity. However, we can't expect you to know that since you obviously haven't taken the time to look over them.
mayartay 3 years ago
I failed to mention the obvious, but Dawkins is far and away the #1 spokesperson for atheism today. But hey, who needs philosophy anyway? As another atheist wrote on this same page, "I dont get all this philosophy crap. Lets go get high." Can we not conclude that in an atheist world, we would have pleasure-seeking and our technological gizmos for awhile, until it degenerates into chaos due to lack of moral & spiritual development?
I haven't seen any convincing arguments from Dennett.
mayartay 3 years ago
Dawkins routinely compares religion to a kind of disease ("meme"), so I think it only fair to jokingly refer to him as "venereal." lol
mayartay 3 years ago
...but that does not mean we all are. We cannot conclude anything about atheism from the words of just one.
You are making huge sweeping assumptions about atheism.
Well i you offer any kind of argument against Dawkins then people might take you seriously, but so far you haven't.
I haven't taken the time to look over ALL the videos, but for the ones i have, they have been debunked even on youtube.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Sorry I've neglected this video for a while. Don't think youtube told me about your responses. Anyway, what do you mean by "I haven't seen any convincing arguments from Dennett"? Regarding what? Dennett is an atheist philosopher. His main area of expertise is philosophy of mind.
He, along with Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are all very well known spokespeople for atheism today. There are many others however, but my favorite has to be Dennett. Ok you have maybe met a few atheists like that...
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens.
Wow. Are they the best you guys can do?
Look at their books. They do not address serious philosophical issues at all. They never tell you what metaphysical or epistemoogical views they are advancing. I get the sense they have not thought carefully about such matters.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
They're not "the best we can do" they are just three guys who speak out.
I've only read one of Harris' books, which is good but isn't the best, i'll give you that.
A book i would suggest is "The impossibility of God" by Martin and Monnier.
Dennett is a good philosopher, but i've not really seen or read much arguments against God, from him.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Martin? Martin was a positivist, which makes less sense than sacrificing chickens to voodoo spirits.
Harris is no better. Radical empiricism is a self-defeating epistemology, even when one holds it as unreflectively as Harris does.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
What is wrong with relying on evidence rather than merely speculating? It may make less sense too you, but sacrificing chickens forto spirits does come from a non-scientific understanding.
I don't think Harris is all that great either, but probably a lot better than me.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
"What is wrong with relying on evidence rather than merely speculating?"
Positivism engages in speculation. It depends on it.
Positivism refutes itself by claiming that "all intelligible knowledge-claims must be empirically verifiable." After all, that claim is not empirically verifiable.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Why not? The claim can be empirically verified by experience. If something is not empirically verified, can we rely on it? If so, how? If not, that verifies the claim.
From what i know about positivism, which isn't a lot, speculation is usually avoided.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
This calls for a much longer discussion of epistemology than I have time for. The short answer is that there is no empirical means of verifying the claim that all knowledge-claims must be empirically verififiable."
Normative claims cannot be empirically verified, and epistemological claims are normative claims.
Also, universal claims cannot be empirically verified.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
You have just claimed the same thing again, even though i have responded with a question. You seem pretty fond of baseless assertions. Maybe that is why you dislike positivism because they demand explanation and evidence.
So I'll ask again: If something is not empirically verified, can we rely on it? If so, how? If not, that verifies the claim.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
You're the one who wrote, "What about the philosopher Daniel Dennett?" So, what about him? LOL
mayartay 3 years ago
Well you were saying that atheists neglect philosophy. So i was simply pointing out an Atheist philosopher.
The thing is, you can deal purely in philosophy, but there comes a point where you need to back up what you say. When you do, this is science.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
Pandamonk wrote:
"Anyway, what do you mean by 'I haven't seen any convincing arguments from Dennett"? Regarding what? Dennett is an atheist philosopher. His main area of expertise is philosophy of mind.'"
All you do is bring up the name Dennett and you think that somehow proves atheists are good at philosophy? LOL
Christian apologists not only are free of the biases of modern science, they also tend to have great expertise in philosophy than anyone. By the way, I am not defending YEC here.
mayartay 3 years ago
I don't think it proves anything. Did i claim it did?
You said atheists reject philosophy, so i merely told of a prominent atheist philosopher.
That's great, but does philosophy actually get them anywhere? Did philosophy get them to the moon? Did it cure diseases?
I know Christian philosophy was the basis for modern science but science has moved so far and left it behind. What does philosophy really do for us today?
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
"You said atheists reject philosophy, so I merely told of a prominent atheist philosopher."
Proving what? That he is inconsistent with how own world-view? We knew *that* already.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Atheism isn't a "world-view" in the you are describing. It is simply a lack of belief in God. He can do and be what ever he wants other than that. I don't really think he is incosistent anyway. Maybe athets are involved in debates in one way or another. They may not, like myself, be trained in philosophy or anything, but they(we) do debate many philosophical questions.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
That might be why atheists appear, to you, to neglect philosophy, because you can only go so far. As soon as an atheist backs up what they say, with evidence, you hate it. Why? Are you scared of the truth?
Pandamonk69 3 years ago
LOL! I've responded every time an atheist presented so-called "evidence" against the existence of God. You will easily find reasoned responses from Christians throughout the Internet on virtually any question or topic. Why do you resort to this completely unfounded assumption about what I am supposedly thinking - that I "hate" something you've written? This is clearly a desperate attempt to try to win an argument.
mayartay 3 years ago
I don't think it is possible to have evidence against the existence of a god. The only thing you can do is close all the gaps which theists fill with God. However, there are definiional arguments against the existence of standard definitions of God.
I'm ure you will find reasoned responses from Christians, Muslims, etc. What's your point?
I can't remember where i wrote that, but you must have come across as seeming to hate the idea i put across.
Pandamonk69 3 years ago