"I think it is the Christian worldview because it has built in metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological standards from which we can answer the problems of philosophy"
But these are not required when there are natural explainations. It also has built in contradictions and a holy book full of inconsistancies and contraditions. Also bear in mind that every other religion claims with equal proof to have the same answers.
Well, I shouldn't say that I have no idea of what your worldview is. You've said that you're committed to science as your epistemological presupposition. Metaphysically, you don't seem to think that there is a God, and you may also believe that there is a world out there for science to get a hold of. Ethically, I think you indicated that morality is objective and is known by natural intuition.
I have no interest in whether the argument is transcendental or not. I only care that you cannot answer it other than to keep refusing to address it, although I respect that you admit you are employing circular logic in your defence of God.
@JanJiska The reason why one should go to transcendental argumentation is precisely for that reason; worldviews cannot be verified otherwise. So we ask, which worldview provides the preconditions that would allow for an intelligible human experience? I think it is the Christian worldview because it has built in metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological standards from which we can answer the problems of philosophy. You think it is...I don't know...because you haven't told me.
@JanJiska When you insist that it is possible for the Christian God to lie, you aren't arguing against the Christian God, you're arguing against a straw man. This is why Michael Martin's "TANG" is a failure; it seeks to show a dialectical tension in the Christian worldview when the argument does not address the Christian sort of God. Moreover, Martin demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the necessity for worldview consideration in transcendental argumentation.
"When you insist that it is possible for the Christian God to lie, you aren't arguing against the Christian God"
I'm afraid it is. There is no reason to believe your God when he says he cannot lie - especially as this directly contradicts him being all powerful. The laws of logic cannot be eternally constant and reliable if he is able to change them at any time.
Your world view is based upon believing one line which cannot be verified and might well be false.
@JanJiska "The laws of logic cannot be eternally constant and reliable if he is able to change them at any time."
God can't change them because they are based on His character and He can't deny Himself. So, again, you aren't addressing the Christian God when you argue this way.
"Your world view is based upon believing one line which cannot be verified and might well be false."
That's sort of the definition of a worldview. Naturalism (and every other worldview) has a similar characteristic.
"God can't change them because they are based on His character and He can't deny Himself"
So he is not all powerful. If he cannot change them, what or who is stopping him?
"That's sort of the definition of a worldview"
The problem with yours is that it is based on one line which has no supporting evidence when there is an infinite amount of equally likely claims and one which is more likely and has supporting evidence for it.
@JanJiska By that I mean that he assumed that he could just criticize the Christian worldview and then call the criticism a "transcendental argument" when the whole point of a transcendental argument is to posit a positive worldview in which arguments are intelligible. And this is something both he and you have failed to do.
"They probably think that they can dismiss your religion just as easily, do you agree?"
The difference is that they affirm the inspiration of my holy book, and I think things like the Koran and the Talmud are at best irrelevant additions.
He could have been lying when he said this (there is no way for you to check, is there? [Yes or no will do here]) or God is not all powerful as there is something he cannot do.
"The difference is that they affirm the inspiration of my holy book, "
So you agree that theists of other religions dismiss yours as easily as you dismiss theirs (for whatever reasons they care to offer). A yes or no answer will do.
And, by the way, your continuing to insist on this point only shows that you refuse to deal with my views honestly; thus demonstrating your lack of respect for me as an individual.
Bear in mind also that you God does things which you do not understand as you are not smart enough. Therefore he could change the laws of logic at any point for any reason you do not understand. He could do this with any scientific or historical fact at any time. If you are a theist then you cannot rely on any law as being constant as your god might change them.
The only way they can be 'universal and invariant' is if there is no super power that can change them.
Also, I am prepared to change my view and opinions on things when new evidence presents itself. Theists either dismiss things which contradict their holy books or have the painfully reinterpret passages etc such that they still apply in the face of scientific evidence. Or claim that science is invalid whilst enjoying the food, warmth, health and safety which science has brough them. Basically sitting on science's lap to slap it in the face.
"In order to make an argument, you must either operate in terms of the Christian system, or in terms of some other system. In terms of the Christian system, that argument isn't relevant because God can't lie. In terms of some other system, you must establish the possibility of intelligibility in order to have an argument "
This is a long winded way of ducking the question. How do you know that the God is who he claims and it is not some other supernatural power lying?
@JanJiska I'm not ducking anything. I said (about 40 times now) that God cannot lie. God's authority is self-attesting. This isn't an arbitrary answer; it is elementary Christian theology. Every school of thought has foundational presuppositions that cannot be questioned (and must be defended circularly) if the school of thought wishes to operate.
"Because if I tried to reason apart from Christian theism as my presupposition, I wouldn't be able to justify the reasoning process"
Plenty of others manage, even before Christ came and walked around ... oh let me guess ... all of these people were actually using the Christian world view and just did not realise?
"You could try reading my post next time before you respond to it."
I did, hence the accurate summary of your position.
"I wouldn't be able to justify the reasoning process" --I'm not saying that I wouldn't be able to reason, but that I couldn't justify reasoning.
"Pointing out that I have to reason in a circle if I want to defend the self-attesting word of God does not refute Christianity any more than my pointing out that you must defend logic circularly is a refutation of the use of logic. " --How do you prove the laws of logic? If you use the laws of logic, that's circular reasoning.
"I'm not saying that I wouldn't be able to reason, but that I couldn't justify reasoning."
Are you are arguing for is a creator, not Christianity. These are not the same arguments. You say that you think the universe must have had a creator because you cannot understand how it would 'work' oherwise. Why should it be the Christian God?
"How do you prove the laws of logic? If you use the laws of logic, that's circular reasoning"
@JanJiska I'm not using the teleological argument, I'm using the transcendental argument. The reason for this is because the transcendental argument is distinctively Christian and Calvinistic. There is no God but the Christian God that has claimed to be the precondition for all other things. Muslims and Jews claim to affirm the same God as Christians, so their theological errors can be addressed biblically.
"You assume them in the same way I assume the God "
Not really.
For me there are really no alternatives but to assume them which do not involve simply making things up out of thin air, whether it is your God or one of the millions of others. For your point simply assuming that the laws of logic were created by a creator and that that creator happens to be the one that caught your attention has plenty of alternatives many of which make just as much sense if you want them to.
@JanJiska Pointing out that I have to reason in a circle if I want to defend the self-attesting word of God does not refute Christianity any more than my pointing out that you must defend logic circularly is a refutation of the use of logic. Now I know that you don't like Christian theology, so if you don't like the answer, then I want you to justify the worldview from which you criticize that answer.
"how can we have universal standards of reasoning"
We don't. We have converged on relevant standards which seem to work to the best of our understanding and generally use those. There are many people who do not follow these standards (parents who 'know' their children are innocent when they have been found guilty in court etc) but this type of reasoning is generally ignored by the calm and sane.
@JanJiska "So? Why does that prove that your God is real?"
Well, it proves that atheism is irrational and it demonstrates that my God provides the content by which we can make sense of the world.
"Kant...Sounds reasonable."
Kant also thought he had figured out something clever. But if all we have is subjective experience, then we have no basis for objectifying our experiences as if they related to an actual physical world--such as for purposes of science.
"I guess God expects us to be cautious in our scholarship. Anybody can learn the Hebrew or Greek and get a more comprehensive understanding of the Bible."
What if there are errors in the Hebrew and Greek? We have already established that God does not protect his message from distortion.
"Again, that begs the question. I know science is useful. What is the foundation for science being possible at all?"
It does not beg the question you are merely asking a different one now. Science is simply discovering knowledge the best way we can. The foundation is that there is something there to discover and learn. We fashion tools to aid our understanding, build a framework of assumptions which may or may not be correct and then start learning.
"How is that, given atheism? How is the world such that it can be understood?"
I am not sure how else it can be. Could you give me an example of a world which could not be understood?
Do you mean how do we know the world is as we are interpreting it? We don't but neither do theists. We have to make that assumption and build on it, for all we know we are nothing but computer programs running in a mainframe somewhere and nothing is as it seems.
@JanJiska "Could you give me an example of a world which could not be understood?"
By definition I could have no understanding of such a world so as to describe it. Understanding is possible because there is a mind behind the world that understands it comprehensively, and I don't think God could create a world that's beyond His understanding because that would deny His omniscient character. But given atheism, with no mind behind the world, how does it follow that understanding is possible?
@JanJiska "Why? Why could we not work to understand a naturally occuring object?"
Because, assuming atheism, the qualities of "understanding" don't fit with the qualities of the natural world. "Understanding" requires a mind to do the apprehending, and we don't find anything like a mind in the natural world. Kant went so far as to say that the only thing we can understand is the realm of our own subjective experience, while the realm of the physical world is unreachable, if it exists at all.
@JanJiska "God can do this as God can do anything."
The Christian God can't lie (Hebrews 6:18) and He can't deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13)
"I believe I answered this below."
When you said that it's the only way the world could be? If there's no rational mind behind the world, the world could be anything--saying "explicability and logic be damned."
"The Christian God can't lie (Hebrews 6:18) and He can't deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13)"
So God is not all powerful? What stops him doing these things? Also the only thing that says God cannot lie is God, what if he was lying when he said that?
"If there's no rational mind behind the world, the world could be anything"
True, we might be microbes on a pie dreaming we are people. Until we have a reason to believe that we had best assume we are not.
@JanJiska "Until we have a reason to believe that we had best assume we are not"
That presupposes (without argument) that the human mind is competent to reason one way or the other about the world. This is problematic when one considers that there is evidence to the contrary. Spinoza and Parmenides had good reasons for believing that all of reality consists of a single thing. Other people have good reasons for believing in a plurality of things. Why do great minds come to different conclusions?
"Why do great minds come to different conclusions?"
Why would they not? Everyone has different opinions and different ways of interpreting information and (mainly in the case of creationists) preset conclusions which they are determined to reach.
It seems like you are just repeating "why" and waiting until I say I do not know before claiming "that is why God (and no one else's) is real - haha!"
Please tell me that you have something more than that God of the gaps nonsense.
@JanJiska Furthermore, with no mind back of the universe, how can we have universal standards of reasoning by which to evaluate whether Spinoza or the other philosophers were right or wrong in their reasoning?
In order to make an argument, you must either operate in terms of the Christian system, or in terms of some other system. In terms of the Christian system, that argument isn't relevant because God can't lie. In terms of some other system, you must establish the possibility of intelligibility in order to have an argument that is anything more than sound and fury signifying nothing.
Unless God was lying when he said that which we cannot determine either way. Also, being as God is all powerful, he could change things so that he no longer requires that he cannot lie,
Examples include Islam, Mormonism, and modern Judaism (perhaps to your surprise; but Judaism is actually more of a religion of the Talmud than of the Old Testament these days.)
"Why? Why should it be Christianity and not some other religion? Why any religion at all?"
Most religions don't claim to have the content that would allow them to make sense of the world, so I'm not sure who my competitors are. Hellenism, Buddhism, and Hinduism don't claim to have absolute gods that could be the precondition for anything. Other religions borrow the God of Christianity and arbitrarily revise Him in some manner.
Well, I should say that I haven't spoken to all the relevant contrary theists, but I have have discussions with a few Muslims. It's pretty rare to find someone that's willing to defend Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism rationally--at least in the United States. People often hold to their religious views tenaciously, but uncritically, so they aren't particularly interested in examining their views beyond their everyday practice (which is much like what you've been doing.)
"People often hold to their religious views tenaciously, but uncritically, so they aren't particularly interested in examining their views beyond their everyday practice (which is much like what you've been doing.)"
Yeah, that was obvious when I attended my wife's church (still sing in their choir), attended and Alpha course and a Life worth Living course and regularly go to my wife's housegroup.
Whereas I believe your statement makes you a hypocrite.
@JanJiska "that was obvious when I attended my wife's church"
I'm not going to defend every individual Christian's inconsistencies. The Bible teaches in 1 Peter 3:15 that every Christian should be prepared to give a reasoned defense of his beliefs. I'll be the first to admit that the Church is in an abysmal, anti-intellectual state that needs to be remedied.
Respond to this video... But anyway, I think I see the point you were trying to make. You think that if I haven't disproven every other worldview, then I can't say Christianity is true. But I would say that I don't need to disprove every conceivable worldview.
"You think that if I haven't disproven every other worldview, then I can't say Christianity is true"
No. I am asking how you can state that Christianity is the only correct world view when you have not studied others, indeed there are an infinite amount of them. My sub point is that other people find other world views as valid as you find yours so why is yours special? Why is any theist WV special?
My argument is that Christianity is the precondition for intelligibility. To any worldview that comes along and says «not-Christianity,» I'll say, «not-intelligibility.» Granted, «not-Christianity» takes a lot of forms that should perhaps be answered in different ways, but they all share the common feature of denial of Christianity, so they'll all share a common inability to account for intelligibility.
@JanJiska "My argument is that Christianity is the precondition for intelligibility"
"Why? Why should it be Chrianity and not some other religion? Why any religion at all?"
Because other worldviews don't make the same metaphysical claims as Christianity, and they end up with problems in turn. It's not like I'm just arbitrarily throwing this statement out there; I've been arguing it with you for over a week now.
I know on the basis of faith in God's authority. In the Christian worldview, God is the ultimate authority, so there's no higher authority by which I could evaluate His authority. If you don't like that, then fine, what's your alternative? How do you know that atheism is true, or that science is a valid means of understanding the world?
How do you know that Jesus was not lying in the bible about the source of his power? How do you know that the power you felt was not a different supernatural force?
"or that science is a valid means of understanding the world"
By experience. We observe, we theorise, we test, we learn. There might be a massive flaw in our understanding we might be hugely wrong about some things but we have to start somewhere.
@JanJiska I believe in proceeding with science because I believe God has created an environment in which rational procedures are applicable to the world. But, since you don't believe as I believe, I want to know why you proceed with science. To paraphrase Van Til, "Your logic claims to deal with eternal and changeless matters; and your facts are wholly changing things; and {in terms of atheism} 'never the twain shall meet.'"
Nothing new under the sun. I rely on the natural order because it is founded by a reliable God. God is faithful and He works all things out for good for those who love Him. He is, unfortunately for your intentions, not the sort of god that you want Him to be so that you might refute Him.
"it is the best tool..."
That begs the question. Why, if atheism were true, would it be the best tool for achieving understanding?
"How do you know that Jesus was not lying in the bible about the source of his power? How do you know that the power you felt was not a different supernatural force?"
@JanJiska "You forgot to answer this: (About Jesus lying)"
No, I just feel like I've answered it before, though apparently not to your satisfaction. The Bible teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. In terms of my presuppositions, no knowledge would be possible at all if I were worried about God being dishonest. I don't really care if you don't accept that; point is that you aren't pointing out a dialectical tension within the Christian worldview.
I know on the basis of faith in God's authority. In the Christian worldview, God is the ultimate authority, so there's no higher authority by which I could evaluate His authority. If you don't like that, then fine, what's your alternative? How do you know that atheism is true, or that science is a valid means of understanding the world?
“Have you spoken to the relevant theists to have your questions answered? Or did you study them simply to find a way to dismiss them? Have you listened to their opinions on why your religion might be wrong?”
“You also did not answer my question of how do you know you were 'touched' by the holy spirit and not some other supernatural force which merely claimed to be the holy spirit?”
That should be obvious. The Bible says I am because I believe
@JanJiska "If God (for a reason you cannot understand) told you to set fire to puppies, that would be just?"
Yes.
"please explain to me how you know"
I know on the basis of faith in God's authority. In the Christian worldview, God is the ultimate authority, so there's no authority I could go to that's above Him to verify His authority.
“He has also approved murder many times in the bible (as well as rape and kidnapping).”
This is a caricature; I’m sure the Canaanite virgins were happy to marry rather than face death with the rest of their perverse culture. If you knew anything about the Canaanites, you wouldn’t take their side against God. Whatever God does is just.
So when he drowned millions of babies in the great flood that was just? If God (for a reason you cannot understand) told you to set fire to puppies, that would be just?
@JanJiska Even if you were reading those verses correctly (and I don't think you are) they do not show that murder, rape, and slavery are normative behaviors for all Christians in all contexts; so you fall short of what I asked you to prove. God has a right to judge people with death where He chooses. The women were not raped, they were saved from death and starvation in the desert. Paul sets out the right behavior for slaves and masters in a pagan environment without commenting on pagan slavery
@Xerxal God approving of rape: Judges 21:10-24 Numbers 31:7-18 Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Judges 5:30 Zechariah 14:1-2 Exodus 21:7-11 Rape victims must marry their rapists: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Rape victims should be killed: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 Women raped and babies murdered: 2 Samuel 12:11-14 So if God spoke to you and told you to set fire to babies, would you? Baring in mind his reasoning might be beyond your understanding and it would be a test of faith.
@JanJiska Time and space don't allow me to address every Bible verse that you've misinterpreted. Most of those verses, if you read more than just that one verse, will lead you to a vastly different conclusion than the one you've drawn. Deut. 22:28-29 does bear mentioning because it contains a mistranslation. The word that has been translated "rape" actually infers a more consensual form of sexual activity in the Hebrew.
"Time and space don't allow me to address every Bible verse that you've misinterpreted"
How convenient, but how you do know I have 'misinterpreted' them? Because you do not want them to say what they say as it does not fit in with our modern attitudes?
"Deut. 22:28-29 does bear mentioning because it contains a mistranslation"
Why would God allow his book to be mistranslated in such a way? How many other errors are in there?
@JanJiska "Why would God allow his book to be mistranslated in such a way?"
I guess God expects us to be cautious in our scholarship. Anybody can learn the Hebrew or Greek and get a more comprehensive understanding of the Bible.
Well, the exegesis of whoever it is you’re citing is just beyond terrible. Judges was describing a period where the Israelites did as they saw fit without regard for God. I’ve already said that rape is not necessarily implied in the passages in Num and Deut. Zech 14:2 describes what the nations will do to Jerusalem before God avenges them. 2 Sam 12:11 is predicting when Absalom claims David’s wives and concubines and has sex with them in public.
"Well, the exegesis of whoever it is you’re citing is just beyond terrible."
Hang on - are you saying that you are able to justify all of the horrific acts God committed and ordered others to commit or that you do not have time?
""My argument is that Christianity is the precondition for intelligibility"
Why? Why should it be Chrianity and not some other religion? Why any religion at all?"
And
"No. I am asking how you can state that Christianity is the only correct world view when you have not studied others, indeed there are an infinite amount of them"
"What’s interesting about this statement is that it is a faith claim. You have confidence that science will figure these things out (or that they already have, and you just haven’t bothered to read about it yet.) "
Why is that interesting? Did you think I believed I knew everything? I do have faith in various things and not others. Rather like you, you have complete faith in your God but not in any other ones (despite, as you said earlier, having never studied them).
@JanJiska “We can either research this amazing and challenging field or we can just make up some magic and say it was that.”
It’s its own kind of magic to say, “Well, we’ll research this one of these days and then I’ll have an answer for you.” I don’t think any amount of research can answer the question I posed to you, because it was a philosophical question. On what terms is “possibility” defined in an ungoverned, atheistic universe?
"It’s its own kind of magic to say, “Well, we’ll research this one of these days and then I’ll have an answer for you.”"
The difference is do you keep learning and trying to understand the universe or do you just assume that one specific supernatural creature does it all. Do you believe what you discover or just what you want?
"On what terms is “possibility” defined in an ungoverned, atheistic universe"
@JanJiska “it might seem irrational to you but that is because you do not understand it. Hence nothing can be relied on to be consistant as anything might be changed by your God.”
On the contrary, that just means I need to correct my understanding to better align with God’s rationality. How else could “rationality” be defined except by God’s rationality?
"On the contrary, that just means I need to correct my understanding to better align with God’s rationality"
So you assume any change that God makes is rational, even if you cannot understand it. So God could change the laws of logic and you would then change your interpretation of rational to accept it? God could change morality to murder toddlers and you would change your view to accomodate?
@JanJiska Maybe the criticism you’ve been trying to force though would have some strength if we were talking about some sort of unknowable philosophical concept of a god like Plato, Aristotle, or Spinoza’s god. Instead, I’m talking about a specific individual that has revealed Himself in a particular book and claims to have an unchanging, Holy, and rational character.
"I’m talking about a specific individual that has revealed Himself in a particular book and claims to have an unchanging, Holy, and rational character. "
How do you know he was telling the truth? Perhaps it is Loci having a laugh!!
@JanJiska When you talk about a god that’s liable to make murder good or turn the law of gravitation into a pink unicorn at the drop of a hat, we just aren’t talking about the same God, so your criticism misses the target by a parsec. If you knew Him, you wouldn’t say such things.
"When you talk about a god that’s liable to make murder good or turn the law of gravitation into a pink unicorn at the drop of a hat, we just aren’t talking about the same God"
You stated that God did things that you did not understand. He has also approved murder many times in the bible (as well as rape and kidnapping).
@JanJiska “I am not a fan of the 'god of the gaps' argument which is essentially what this is.”
No, it’s not. If I operated as some sort of Rationalist, came to a problem, and said, “Okay, well here I need to posit a god of morality, and here I need to posit a god of the uniformity of nature,” then I would be committing a god of the gaps fallacy. Instead, I’m operating as a Christian, and I find that the entire Christian worldview (as it is) accounts for all of reality as it is.
"and I find that the entire Christian worldview (as it is) accounts for all of reality as it is."
Although you have never studied other world views in as much depth so you are heavily biased. Also having a God renders all universal and scientific laws unreliable as anything could be changed at any moment for an unknown reason. Therefore this God would 'break' science as we know it.
@JanJiska “Science has definitive proof of its achievments throughout history. Ones which you use every day.”
If science has any historical constant, it’s that it eventually gets proven wrong by other scientists. I don’t understand how anyone could be dogmatic about any of science’s current theories (except by gross naiveté), let alone about hypothetical future theories.
"If science has any historical constant, it’s that it eventually gets proven wrong by other scientists"
Rather like science has continually proved religion wrong? People once thought that their God caused the sun to rise - that is obvious rubbish. Although their religion was just made up stories with what they thought was hard evidence that they believed ... not like yours at all
“Rather like you, you have complete faith in your God but not in any other ones (despite, as you said earlier, having never studied them).”
I refrained from responding to your earlier “spam-marked” comment because I figured you were embarrassed by it enough, but if you want to bring it up again, then fine, I’ll play along. Your original question was if I had studied any other worldviews to the same degree as I had studied Christianity. (cont)
"I refrained from responding to your earlier “spam-marked” comment "
You also did not answer my question of how do you know you were 'touched' by the holy spirit and not some other supernatural force which merely claimed to be the holy spirit?
I answered that the only other one I had studied to the same degree was atheism, because I once lived and thought as an atheist. I’ve never been a Muslim or a Hindu, so no, I haven’t studied them as thoroughly as I have Christianity or atheism.That doesn’t mean I haven’t studied them at all, as you have presumptuously inferred. I know enough about other popular worldviews to at least be able to be able to do an internal critique of them and explain why I think they’re mistaken on their own terms
" I know enough about other popular worldviews to at least be able to be able to do an internal critique of them and explain why I think they’re mistaken on their own terms"
Have you spoken to the relevant theists to have your questions answered? Or did you study them simply to find a way to dismiss them? Have you listened to their opinions on why your religion might be wrong?
@JanJiska “How do you know he was telling the truth?”
The Christian worldview provides what Greg Bahnsen calls “the preconditions for intelligibility.” As such, I must operate within the Christian worldview if I want to make sense of reality. Within the Christian worldview, I don’t have to worry about God telling lies because it’s one of the few things the Bible says God cannot do. If you have some other worldview by which you can evaluate truth claims, then I’d like to hear of it.
“Science does not claim the universe operates by blind chance.”
I agree, because science operates in terms of a teleological theistic universe, though it often fails to affirm such. You, however, believe the universe is ungoverned, and yet events somehow occur in this ungoverned universe. How could events occur in an ungoverned universe if not by blind molecules bouncing off each other by change?
"How could events occur in an ungoverned universe if not by blind molecules bouncing off each other by change?"
We can either research this amazing and challenging field or we can just make up some magic and say it was that. No matter how difficult or challenging I think that active scientific research is vastly superior to the god of the gaps argument.
"God does things I don’t understand all the time. I don’t see the relevance of your question."
You stated that God would only change the universe in a 'rational' way. Now you agree that God might do it for a reason you do not understand i.e. it might seem irrational to you but that is because you do not understand it. Hence nothing can be relied on to be consistant as anything might be changed by your God.
Okay, we do not have uniformity in nature. Earlier, you said we did. In the same way that we do not have reliable abstract laws if God can change them and we have no knowledge as we cannot tell what is and is not as God might change anything at any time.
"However, science must operate with certain preconceived notions ..."
Yes, do you feel that this invalidates all scientic research?
"you think it is illegitimate for me to say, by faith, that God will govern the universe He’s created rationally"
Indeed, I am not a fan of the 'god of the gaps' argument which is essentially what this is. Science does not know how the universe works! Then it must have been my God (and not anyone elses)!
"and you expect me to accept “science will figure it out”
Science has definitive proof of its achievments throughout history. Ones which you use every day.
From this we proceed until we get where we are now. Note, this assumes that the world is as it is and there is no super natural power which can change reality at will. If there was such a creature this knowledge would be impossible as you would be unable to know whether this creature will change any of these laws for reasons beyond understanding.
@JanJiska One could ask Descartes (and you, for that matter) what else needs to be true in order for there to be thinking, existing, and investigation going on? Like you said in your last paragraph, nature needs to be uniform. The nature of existence and rationality can't spontaneously change in the middle of an investigation. So then what is the basis for the uniformity of nature?
"What is your morality, and why should you listen to it?"
It does not have a name. I listen to it because it makes me happy and life seems to work out better if I do.
"Just atheism"
So you have never researched any other religious world view. Therefore you have no way of knowing whether they provide equal or superior world views to Christianity.
@JanJiska I would say, (and I think Descartes would agree with me) that it's because God created the world to be orderly, and He maintains its stability. Now if God wants to make exceptions here and there (say to change water into wine) that seems fair to me. And that doesn't mean that science is impossible, since God is the one that's allowing science to be possible in the first place.
@JanJiska Now if your problem is in submitting to the notion that God controls the universe and (oh no!) He could do anything He wanted, then yeah, it calls for faith that God will take care of us. Faith isn't a problem in my worldview, though I can understand how you might have a problem with it.
@JanJiska While I'm here, I might as well explain my claim that knowledge requires God. First, my answer depends on your conception of "knowledge." Are we talking about empirical, scientific knowledge? Then we need God to make nature uniform. Are talking about a priori knowledge? Then we need God to make abstract universal laws. Are we instead talking about knowledge that is certain? Then we need God to proclaim what is and what is not. It seems that God is necessary no matter how we come at it.
@JanJiska {"Then we need God to make abstract universal laws"}
"Abstract laws are merely deductions based on experience to the best of our knowledge."
You're taking an ontological question and answering it as though it were an epistemological question. I'm not asking how we go about discovering natural laws, I'm asking how it is they're out there in nature in the first place.
"I'm asking how it is they're out there in nature in the first place."
Laws are just the names we give to observed consistancies. They might not be laws, we might find out tomorrow that we are wrong about them. If you are asking why the universe is he way it is then you will need to speak to some of the expert scientist who are researchig this, I am not an expert on that field - note that this does not mean that your God is real and responsible for everything.
@JanJiska “you will need to speak to some of the expert scientist who are researching this”
What’s interesting about this statement is that it is a faith claim. You have confidence that science will figure these things out (or that they already have, and you just haven’t bothered to read about it yet.)
For some reason, you think it is illegitimate for me to say, by faith, that God will govern the universe He’s created rationally, and you expect me to accept “science will figure it out” without giving me anything that even begins to be a response to the question.
@JanJiska "If God were real there would be no certainty as he could change things at will. Nothing could ever be relied upon."
You seem to have a huge problem with this since you didn't seem to acknowledge my earlier response to this sentiment. You should understand that the same thing is true in an ungoverned universe as well. Anything could abruptly change in an atheist universe and there would be no one able to prevent it. So your criticism cuts both ways.
"Anything could abruptly change in an atheist universe and there would be no one able to prevent it"
So you agree that God does not provide uniformity in nature, universal laws etc. Previously you claimed the opposite.
"So your criticism cuts both ways."
No, science does not claim that nature is completely uniform. It merely reports what it observes to the best of its ability. Things might well change or be wrong but science simply learns from it.
@JanJiska “So you agree that God does not provide uniformity in nature”
I don’t see how you would gather this from what I said. I agree that nature isn’t completely uniform in the sense that it’s the unchanging world of Parmenides. However, science must operate with certain preconceived notions about reality that must remain constant in order to get off the ground.
@JanJiska Examples include identity through change, the ability of the mind to apprehend the world, and the inductive principle. As a Christian, I believe God establishes these principles in His reality. I don’t understand how they could be established without Him.
@JanJiska The difference is that I believe that if God were to change nature, He would do so according to a rational principle, it wouldn't be blind chance acting itself out.
"God were to change nature, He would do so according to a rational principle"
So you think that all seeing, all knowing, all powerful, supernatural mega being can never do something for a reason you do not understand? Seriously? You think you are smarter than your God?
"blind chance acting itself out"
Science does not claim the universe operates by blind chance. That is an idiotic straw man argument.
@JanJiska “Science does not claim the universe operates by blind chance.”
I agree, because science operates in terms of a teleological theistic universe, though it often fails to affirm such. You, however, believe the universe is ungoverned, and yet events somehow occur in this ungoverned universe. How could events occur in an ungoverned universe if not by blind molecules bouncing off each other by chance?
Bahnsen is bitter, and should avoid ad homimen terms such as "weak" and "trying", etc. Gordon Stein is my hero! Check out Christopher Hitchens "The Portable Atheist".
As Dr Bahnsen further points out in this debate with George Smith, the atheist's materialist metaphysical presuppositions are also in conflict. The materialist wants to say that the only things that are allowed to exist are material entities that can be empirically verified. But in so doing, he undermines rationality because "rationality" is an immaterial entity. Likewise, any argument favoring materialism is also immaterial in nature.
I think the point made about electrons is particularly interesting because there are physical consequences to the fact that all electrons are identical. It is not just a philosophical question to ask if they all act the same, we can test a small number of electrons and, in so doing, make a statement about all electrons everywhere. This has to do with the generalized uncertainty principle and the Pauli exclusion principle.
all of this debating is besides the point. Let's talk about physical laws. The theory of relativity, or of quantum mechanics are mathematical reductions of the observations of how things interact in the real world. Gravity works in a certain way, and not another, following its nature. It's not following a "law", it's following it's nature. So trying to prove God's existence, because physical objects follow rules that are imposed by their composition, is nonsense.
Because one requires the existance of an invisitable super power who refuses to show himself lately (he was quite happy to in the OT and NT) whereas the other requires evidence based proof which can be examined and disproved by anyone.
Also "God did it" requires the question "Which God?"
The problem is that Dr Stein's epistemology is in conflict with itself. He says that the only way to support factual claims is by use of logic or reason and no circular reasoning is allowed. But Dr Stein cannot support that factual claim without the use of logic or reason--hence he's engaged in circular reasoning.
A Christian epistemology doesn't fall into these sorts of traps. There is nothing contradictory in saying God established the possibility for knowledge in His creatures.
lol, Stein is such a retard and even the moderator (Dan Barker [and atheist]) takes him to task.
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"I think it is the Christian worldview because it has built in metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological standards from which we can answer the problems of philosophy"
But these are not required when there are natural explainations. It also has built in contradictions and a holy book full of inconsistancies and contraditions. Also bear in mind that every other religion claims with equal proof to have the same answers.
JanJiska 11 months ago
Well, I shouldn't say that I have no idea of what your worldview is. You've said that you're committed to science as your epistemological presupposition. Metaphysically, you don't seem to think that there is a God, and you may also believe that there is a world out there for science to get a hold of. Ethically, I think you indicated that morality is objective and is known by natural intuition.
Does that sound accurate?
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
I have no interest in whether the argument is transcendental or not. I only care that you cannot answer it other than to keep refusing to address it, although I respect that you admit you are employing circular logic in your defence of God.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska The reason why one should go to transcendental argumentation is precisely for that reason; worldviews cannot be verified otherwise. So we ask, which worldview provides the preconditions that would allow for an intelligible human experience? I think it is the Christian worldview because it has built in metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological standards from which we can answer the problems of philosophy. You think it is...I don't know...because you haven't told me.
Xerxal 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"And, by the way, your continuing to insist on this point only shows that you refuse to deal with my views honestly"
No idea where you get that. I am being completely honest, have asked the question more than once because you keep failing to answer.
"thus demonstrating your lack of respect for me as an individual. "
I respect you completely, that does not prevent me from winning a debate against you.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska When you insist that it is possible for the Christian God to lie, you aren't arguing against the Christian God, you're arguing against a straw man. This is why Michael Martin's "TANG" is a failure; it seeks to show a dialectical tension in the Christian worldview when the argument does not address the Christian sort of God. Moreover, Martin demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the necessity for worldview consideration in transcendental argumentation.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"When you insist that it is possible for the Christian God to lie, you aren't arguing against the Christian God"
I'm afraid it is. There is no reason to believe your God when he says he cannot lie - especially as this directly contradicts him being all powerful. The laws of logic cannot be eternally constant and reliable if he is able to change them at any time.
Your world view is based upon believing one line which cannot be verified and might well be false.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "The laws of logic cannot be eternally constant and reliable if he is able to change them at any time."
God can't change them because they are based on His character and He can't deny Himself. So, again, you aren't addressing the Christian God when you argue this way.
"Your world view is based upon believing one line which cannot be verified and might well be false."
That's sort of the definition of a worldview. Naturalism (and every other worldview) has a similar characteristic.
Xerxal 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"God can't change them because they are based on His character and He can't deny Himself"
So he is not all powerful. If he cannot change them, what or who is stopping him?
"That's sort of the definition of a worldview"
The problem with yours is that it is based on one line which has no supporting evidence when there is an infinite amount of equally likely claims and one which is more likely and has supporting evidence for it.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"God can't change them because they are based on His character and He can't deny Himself."
Why not? What stops him? I thought he was supposed to be all powerful.
"That's sort of the definition of a worldview. "
But yours is no more plausible than any other relgion simply grabbing hold a deity and insisting it is true. This is what I truely do not understand,
JanJiska 10 months ago
@JanJiska By that I mean that he assumed that he could just criticize the Christian worldview and then call the criticism a "transcendental argument" when the whole point of a transcendental argument is to posit a positive worldview in which arguments are intelligible. And this is something both he and you have failed to do.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"There is no God but he Christian God that has claimed to be the precondition for all other things"
This is irrelevant as we have already established there is no way to determine if God is lying.
Also who is to say the actual creator has tried taking credit at all?
"Muslims and Jews claim to affirm the same God as Christians, so their theological errors can be addressed biblically."
They probably think that they can dismiss your religion just as easily, do you agree?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "no way to determine if God is lying."
This is irrelevant because God can't lie.
"They probably think that they can dismiss your religion just as easily, do you agree?"
The difference is that they affirm the inspiration of my holy book, and I think things like the Koran and the Talmud are at best irrelevant additions.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"This is irrelevant because God can't lie."
He could have been lying when he said this (there is no way for you to check, is there? [Yes or no will do here]) or God is not all powerful as there is something he cannot do.
"The difference is that they affirm the inspiration of my holy book, "
So you agree that theists of other religions dismiss yours as easily as you dismiss theirs (for whatever reasons they care to offer). A yes or no answer will do.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "no way to determine if God is lying."
And, by the way, your continuing to insist on this point only shows that you refuse to deal with my views honestly; thus demonstrating your lack of respect for me as an individual.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
Bear in mind also that you God does things which you do not understand as you are not smart enough. Therefore he could change the laws of logic at any point for any reason you do not understand. He could do this with any scientific or historical fact at any time. If you are a theist then you cannot rely on any law as being constant as your god might change them.
The only way they can be 'universal and invariant' is if there is no super power that can change them.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
Also, I am prepared to change my view and opinions on things when new evidence presents itself. Theists either dismiss things which contradict their holy books or have the painfully reinterpret passages etc such that they still apply in the face of scientific evidence. Or claim that science is invalid whilst enjoying the food, warmth, health and safety which science has brough them. Basically sitting on science's lap to slap it in the face.
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"Pointing out that I have to reason in a circle if I want to defend the self-attesting word of God does not refute Christianity"
As long as we agree that your logic is circular with no confirmation that its origins are as you claim.
"so if you don't like the answer"
Actually I do like it, it is what I suspected all along. Circular reasoning built upon gullibility.
JanJiska 11 months ago
"In order to make an argument, you must either operate in terms of the Christian system, or in terms of some other system. In terms of the Christian system, that argument isn't relevant because God can't lie. In terms of some other system, you must establish the possibility of intelligibility in order to have an argument "
This is a long winded way of ducking the question. How do you know that the God is who he claims and it is not some other supernatural power lying?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska I'm not ducking anything. I said (about 40 times now) that God cannot lie. God's authority is self-attesting. This isn't an arbitrary answer; it is elementary Christian theology. Every school of thought has foundational presuppositions that cannot be questioned (and must be defended circularly) if the school of thought wishes to operate.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"I said (about 40 times now) God cannot lie"
Yes, perhaps on this 41st time you could answer the question instead. Why can God not lie? What stops him?
How do you know it was your God talking in the first place and not something merely claiming to be it?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "How do you know it was your God talking in the first place and not something merely claiming to be it?"
Because if I tried to reason apart from Christian theism as my presupposition, I wouldn't be able to justify the reasoning process.
"As long as we agree that your logic is circular with no confirmation that its origins are as you claim. "
You could try reading my post next time before you respond to it.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"Because if I tried to reason apart from Christian theism as my presupposition, I wouldn't be able to justify the reasoning process"
Plenty of others manage, even before Christ came and walked around ... oh let me guess ... all of these people were actually using the Christian world view and just did not realise?
"You could try reading my post next time before you respond to it."
I did, hence the accurate summary of your position.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska
Read:
"I wouldn't be able to justify the reasoning process" --I'm not saying that I wouldn't be able to reason, but that I couldn't justify reasoning.
"Pointing out that I have to reason in a circle if I want to defend the self-attesting word of God does not refute Christianity any more than my pointing out that you must defend logic circularly is a refutation of the use of logic. " --How do you prove the laws of logic? If you use the laws of logic, that's circular reasoning.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"I'm not saying that I wouldn't be able to reason, but that I couldn't justify reasoning."
Are you are arguing for is a creator, not Christianity. These are not the same arguments. You say that you think the universe must have had a creator because you cannot understand how it would 'work' oherwise. Why should it be the Christian God?
"How do you prove the laws of logic? If you use the laws of logic, that's circular reasoning"
I do not 'prove' them.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska I'm not using the teleological argument, I'm using the transcendental argument. The reason for this is because the transcendental argument is distinctively Christian and Calvinistic. There is no God but the Christian God that has claimed to be the precondition for all other things. Muslims and Jews claim to affirm the same God as Christians, so their theological errors can be addressed biblically.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@JanJiska "I do not 'prove' them. "
You assume them in the same way I assume the God that establishes logic as universal and invariant.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,.
"You assume them in the same way I assume the God "
Not really.
For me there are really no alternatives but to assume them which do not involve simply making things up out of thin air, whether it is your God or one of the millions of others. For your point simply assuming that the laws of logic were created by a creator and that that creator happens to be the one that caught your attention has plenty of alternatives many of which make just as much sense if you want them to.
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "has plenty of alternatives many of which make just as much sense if you want them to."
Like what?
"Or claim that science is invalid"
We both seem to agree that science is not infallible, and that's as far as I would go against it.
"The only way they can be 'universal and invariant' is if there is no super power that can change them."
Which is why God hasn't changed them. I want to know how they could exist at all in terms of your worldview.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@JanJiska Pointing out that I have to reason in a circle if I want to defend the self-attesting word of God does not refute Christianity any more than my pointing out that you must defend logic circularly is a refutation of the use of logic. Now I know that you don't like Christian theology, so if you don't like the answer, then I want you to justify the worldview from which you criticize that answer.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"how can we have universal standards of reasoning"
We don't. We have converged on relevant standards which seem to work to the best of our understanding and generally use those. There are many people who do not follow these standards (parents who 'know' their children are innocent when they have been found guilty in court etc) but this type of reasoning is generally ignored by the calm and sane.
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal.
"Understanding requires a mind to do the apprehending, and we don't find anything like a mind in the natural world"
So? Why does that prove that your God (and not any other kind of creator, of course) is real?
"Kant went so far as to say that the only thing we can understand is the realm of our own subjective experience"
Sounds reasonable.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "So? Why does that prove that your God is real?"
Well, it proves that atheism is irrational and it demonstrates that my God provides the content by which we can make sense of the world.
"Kant...Sounds reasonable."
Kant also thought he had figured out something clever. But if all we have is subjective experience, then we have no basis for objectifying our experiences as if they related to an actual physical world--such as for purposes of science.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"Well, it proves that atheism is irrational and it demonstrates that my God provides the content by which we can make sense of the world."
No you are arguing for a creator, not your God. They are separate arguments which you are trying to merge.
It is nothing but a God of the gaps argument.
"But if all we have is subjective experience, ..."
It mainly comes down to an assumption. We have to assume that the world is as we interpret it, we may be wrong but we assume we are not.
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"I guess God expects us to be cautious in our scholarship. Anybody can learn the Hebrew or Greek and get a more comprehensive understanding of the Bible."
What if there are errors in the Hebrew and Greek? We have already established that God does not protect his message from distortion.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"Again, that begs the question. I know science is useful. What is the foundation for science being possible at all?"
It does not beg the question you are merely asking a different one now. Science is simply discovering knowledge the best way we can. The foundation is that there is something there to discover and learn. We fashion tools to aid our understanding, build a framework of assumptions which may or may not be correct and then start learning.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "you are merely asking a different one now."
Given the way I answered the first question, I figured that the second question was implied in the first one.
"The foundation is that there is something there to discover and learn."
How is that, given atheism? How is the world such that it can be understood?
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"How is that, given atheism? How is the world such that it can be understood?"
I am not sure how else it can be. Could you give me an example of a world which could not be understood?
Do you mean how do we know the world is as we are interpreting it? We don't but neither do theists. We have to make that assumption and build on it, for all we know we are nothing but computer programs running in a mainframe somewhere and nothing is as it seems.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "Could you give me an example of a world which could not be understood?"
By definition I could have no understanding of such a world so as to describe it. Understanding is possible because there is a mind behind the world that understands it comprehensively, and I don't think God could create a world that's beyond His understanding because that would deny His omniscient character. But given atheism, with no mind behind the world, how does it follow that understanding is possible?
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"Understanding is possible because there is a mind behind the world that understands it comprehensively"
Why? Why could we not work to understand a naturally occuring object?
"I don't think God could create a world that's beyond His understanding because that would deny His omniscient character"
God can do this as God can do anything.
"But given atheism, with no mind behind the world, how does it follow that understanding is possible?"
I believe I answered this below.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "Why? Why could we not work to understand a naturally occuring object?"
Because, assuming atheism, the qualities of "understanding" don't fit with the qualities of the natural world. "Understanding" requires a mind to do the apprehending, and we don't find anything like a mind in the natural world. Kant went so far as to say that the only thing we can understand is the realm of our own subjective experience, while the realm of the physical world is unreachable, if it exists at all.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@JanJiska "God can do this as God can do anything."
The Christian God can't lie (Hebrews 6:18) and He can't deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13)
"I believe I answered this below."
When you said that it's the only way the world could be? If there's no rational mind behind the world, the world could be anything--saying "explicability and logic be damned."
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"The Christian God can't lie (Hebrews 6:18) and He can't deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13)"
So God is not all powerful? What stops him doing these things? Also the only thing that says God cannot lie is God, what if he was lying when he said that?
"If there's no rational mind behind the world, the world could be anything"
True, we might be microbes on a pie dreaming we are people. Until we have a reason to believe that we had best assume we are not.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "Until we have a reason to believe that we had best assume we are not"
That presupposes (without argument) that the human mind is competent to reason one way or the other about the world. This is problematic when one considers that there is evidence to the contrary. Spinoza and Parmenides had good reasons for believing that all of reality consists of a single thing. Other people have good reasons for believing in a plurality of things. Why do great minds come to different conclusions?
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"Why do great minds come to different conclusions?"
Why would they not? Everyone has different opinions and different ways of interpreting information and (mainly in the case of creationists) preset conclusions which they are determined to reach.
It seems like you are just repeating "why" and waiting until I say I do not know before claiming "that is why God (and no one else's) is real - haha!"
Please tell me that you have something more than that God of the gaps nonsense.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska Furthermore, with no mind back of the universe, how can we have universal standards of reasoning by which to evaluate whether Spinoza or the other philosophers were right or wrong in their reasoning?
Xerxal 11 months ago
@JanJiska "So God is not all powerful?"
The attributes of God must be defined by God. God has all power that exists, and God determines what exists.
"What stops him doing these things?"
His attributes are a part of His eternal character; He is not subject to anything outside Himself.
"what if he was lying when he said that?"
God's word must be taken on its own say so. Man is not competent to bring God's word into question.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"His attributes are a part of His eternal character; He is not subject to anything outside Himself."
So if reality requires that God cannot lie why can't God just change reality so that it does not require he does not lie, being as he is all powerful?
"God's word must be taken on its own say so. Man is not competent to bring God's word into question."
So all of this might be based on lies and you have assumed that it is not? It could be Loki having a laugh!
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska
"It could be Loki having a laugh!"
In order to make an argument, you must either operate in terms of the Christian system, or in terms of some other system. In terms of the Christian system, that argument isn't relevant because God can't lie. In terms of some other system, you must establish the possibility of intelligibility in order to have an argument that is anything more than sound and fury signifying nothing.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@JanJiska "if reality requires that God cannot lie"
God requires that God can't lie.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"God requires that God can't lie."
Unless God was lying when he said that which we cannot determine either way. Also, being as God is all powerful, he could change things so that he no longer requires that he cannot lie,
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal, "So if God spoke to you and told you to set fire to babies, would you?"
That's a loaded question, but, if I knew it was God speaking, then yes I hope I would have the faith to do so.
That is truely terrifying. I hope people like yourself are few and far between and look forward to the day when there are none.
JanJiska 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Because it has no rivals, it is tried and tested by billions of people every day and to the point where it is accurate enough to trust."
Again, that begs the question. I know science is useful. What is the foundation for science being possible at all?
Xerxal 11 months ago
Examples include Islam, Mormonism, and modern Judaism (perhaps to your surprise; but Judaism is actually more of a religion of the Talmud than of the Old Testament these days.)
Xerxal 11 months ago
"Why? Why should it be Christianity and not some other religion? Why any religion at all?"
Most religions don't claim to have the content that would allow them to make sense of the world, so I'm not sure who my competitors are. Hellenism, Buddhism, and Hinduism don't claim to have absolute gods that could be the precondition for anything. Other religions borrow the God of Christianity and arbitrarily revise Him in some manner.
Xerxal 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"Most religions don't claim to have the content that would allow them to make sense of the world"
Have you discussed this with the relevant opposing theists?
"Other religions borrow the God of Christianity and arbitrarily revise Him in some manne"
Which ones? How do you know that Christianity has not simply borrowed from other religions? What is Jesus was actually Loki having a laugh?
What if the real creator is yet to reveal themselves?
JanJiska 11 months ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
Well, I should say that I haven't spoken to all the relevant contrary theists, but I have have discussions with a few Muslims. It's pretty rare to find someone that's willing to defend Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism rationally--at least in the United States. People often hold to their religious views tenaciously, but uncritically, so they aren't particularly interested in examining their views beyond their everyday practice (which is much like what you've been doing.)
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"People often hold to their religious views tenaciously, but uncritically, so they aren't particularly interested in examining their views beyond their everyday practice (which is much like what you've been doing.)"
Yeah, that was obvious when I attended my wife's church (still sing in their choir), attended and Alpha course and a Life worth Living course and regularly go to my wife's housegroup.
Whereas I believe your statement makes you a hypocrite.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "that was obvious when I attended my wife's church"
I'm not going to defend every individual Christian's inconsistencies. The Bible teaches in 1 Peter 3:15 that every Christian should be prepared to give a reasoned defense of his beliefs. I'll be the first to admit that the Church is in an abysmal, anti-intellectual state that needs to be remedied.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"I'll be the first to admit that the Church is in an abysmal, anti-intellectual state that needs to be remedied."
Makes you wonder where God is!
JanJiska 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
Respond to this video... But anyway, I think I see the point you were trying to make. You think that if I haven't disproven every other worldview, then I can't say Christianity is true. But I would say that I don't need to disprove every conceivable worldview.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"You think that if I haven't disproven every other worldview, then I can't say Christianity is true"
No. I am asking how you can state that Christianity is the only correct world view when you have not studied others, indeed there are an infinite amount of them. My sub point is that other people find other world views as valid as you find yours so why is yours special? Why is any theist WV special?
JanJiska 1 year ago
My argument is that Christianity is the precondition for intelligibility. To any worldview that comes along and says «not-Christianity,» I'll say, «not-intelligibility.» Granted, «not-Christianity» takes a lot of forms that should perhaps be answered in different ways, but they all share the common feature of denial of Christianity, so they'll all share a common inability to account for intelligibility.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"My argument is that Christianity is the precondition for intelligibility"
Why? Why should it be Chrianity and not some other religion? Why any religion at all?
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "My argument is that Christianity is the precondition for intelligibility"
"Why? Why should it be Chrianity and not some other religion? Why any religion at all?"
Because other worldviews don't make the same metaphysical claims as Christianity, and they end up with problems in turn. It's not like I'm just arbitrarily throwing this statement out there; I've been arguing it with you for over a week now.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@JanJiska «please explain to me how you know»
I know on the basis of faith in God's authority. In the Christian worldview, God is the ultimate authority, so there's no higher authority by which I could evaluate His authority. If you don't like that, then fine, what's your alternative? How do you know that atheism is true, or that science is a valid means of understanding the world?
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"I know on the basis of faith in God's authority"
How do you know that Jesus was not lying in the bible about the source of his power? How do you know that the power you felt was not a different supernatural force?
"or that science is a valid means of understanding the world"
By experience. We observe, we theorise, we test, we learn. There might be a massive flaw in our understanding we might be hugely wrong about some things but we have to start somewhere.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska I believe in proceeding with science because I believe God has created an environment in which rational procedures are applicable to the world. But, since you don't believe as I believe, I want to know why you proceed with science. To paraphrase Van Til, "Your logic claims to deal with eternal and changeless matters; and your facts are wholly changing things; and {in terms of atheism} 'never the twain shall meet.'"
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"I believe in proceeding with science because I believe God has created an environment in which rational procedures are applicable to the world. "
But god could change these laws at any point for a reason you don't understand. Therefore nothing in science can be relied upon - so why do you?
"I want to know why you proceed with science"
Because it is the best tool I have found for understanding the world.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "so why do you?"
Nothing new under the sun. I rely on the natural order because it is founded by a reliable God. God is faithful and He works all things out for good for those who love Him. He is, unfortunately for your intentions, not the sort of god that you want Him to be so that you might refute Him.
"it is the best tool..."
That begs the question. Why, if atheism were true, would it be the best tool for achieving understanding?
Xerxal 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"God is faithful and He works all things out for good for those who love Him"
So nothing bad happens to Christians?
"I rely on the natural order because it is founded by a reliable God"
How do you know that?
"Why, if atheism were true, would it be the best tool for achieving understanding?"
Because it has no rivals, it is tried and tested by billions of people every day and to the point where it is accurate enough to trust.
JanJiska 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
You forgot to answer this:
"How do you know that Jesus was not lying in the bible about the source of his power? How do you know that the power you felt was not a different supernatural force?"
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "You forgot to answer this: (About Jesus lying)"
No, I just feel like I've answered it before, though apparently not to your satisfaction. The Bible teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. In terms of my presuppositions, no knowledge would be possible at all if I were worried about God being dishonest. I don't really care if you don't accept that; point is that you aren't pointing out a dialectical tension within the Christian worldview.
Xerxal 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"In terms of my presuppositions, no knowledge would be possible at all if I were worried about God being dishonest. "
So you are just assuming without any sensible reason that Jesus was telling the truth because it makes the rest of your understanding easier.
"point is that you aren't pointing out a dialectical tension within the Christian worldview"
The point is that you have no reason to insist that this worldview is the one and only valid one.
JanJiska 11 months ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska «please explain to me how you know»
I know on the basis of faith in God's authority. In the Christian worldview, God is the ultimate authority, so there's no higher authority by which I could evaluate His authority. If you don't like that, then fine, what's your alternative? How do you know that atheism is true, or that science is a valid means of understanding the world?
Xerxal 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
“Have you spoken to the relevant theists to have your questions answered? Or did you study them simply to find a way to dismiss them? Have you listened to their opinions on why your religion might be wrong?”
All of the above, what’s your point?
Xerxal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"Well, I should say that I haven't spoken to all the relevant contrary theists ..."
This is my point.
JanJiska 1 year ago
“You also did not answer my question of how do you know you were 'touched' by the holy spirit and not some other supernatural force which merely claimed to be the holy spirit?”
That should be obvious. The Bible says I am because I believe
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"That should be obvious"
Nope, please explain to me how you know it was the HS and not some other supernatural force merely claiming to be the HS.
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "If God (for a reason you cannot understand) told you to set fire to puppies, that would be just?"
Yes.
"please explain to me how you know"
I know on the basis of faith in God's authority. In the Christian worldview, God is the ultimate authority, so there's no authority I could go to that's above Him to verify His authority.
Xerxal 1 year ago
“He has also approved murder many times in the bible (as well as rape and kidnapping).”
This is a caricature; I’m sure the Canaanite virgins were happy to marry rather than face death with the rest of their perverse culture. If you knew anything about the Canaanites, you wouldn’t take their side against God. Whatever God does is just.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"This is a caricature"
It is a fact, simple as that.
"Whatever God does is just."
So when he drowned millions of babies in the great flood that was just? If God (for a reason you cannot understand) told you to set fire to puppies, that would be just?
JanJiska 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
@JanJiska "It is a fact, simple as that."
Show me in the Bible where it says, "Go out and murder, rape, and kidnap people because God approves of it?"
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal
Murder: Ezekiel 9:5-7
Rape: Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Slavery (via kidnap or not): Ephesians 6:5
There are many many more examples of these, you could not have read the bible if you did not know this.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Even if you were reading those verses correctly (and I don't think you are) they do not show that murder, rape, and slavery are normative behaviors for all Christians in all contexts; so you fall short of what I asked you to prove. God has a right to judge people with death where He chooses. The women were not raped, they were saved from death and starvation in the desert. Paul sets out the right behavior for slaves and masters in a pagan environment without commenting on pagan slavery
Xerxal 11 months ago
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska Time and space don't allow me to address every Bible verse that you've misinterpreted. Most of those verses, if you read more than just that one verse, will lead you to a vastly different conclusion than the one you've drawn. Deut. 22:28-29 does bear mentioning because it contains a mistranslation. The word that has been translated "rape" actually infers a more consensual form of sexual activity in the Hebrew.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"Time and space don't allow me to address every Bible verse that you've misinterpreted"
How convenient, but how you do know I have 'misinterpreted' them? Because you do not want them to say what they say as it does not fit in with our modern attitudes?
"Deut. 22:28-29 does bear mentioning because it contains a mistranslation"
Why would God allow his book to be mistranslated in such a way? How many other errors are in there?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska "Why would God allow his book to be mistranslated in such a way?"
I guess God expects us to be cautious in our scholarship. Anybody can learn the Hebrew or Greek and get a more comprehensive understanding of the Bible.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@JanJiska "How convenient"
Well, the exegesis of whoever it is you’re citing is just beyond terrible. Judges was describing a period where the Israelites did as they saw fit without regard for God. I’ve already said that rape is not necessarily implied in the passages in Num and Deut. Zech 14:2 describes what the nations will do to Jerusalem before God avenges them. 2 Sam 12:11 is predicting when Absalom claims David’s wives and concubines and has sex with them in public.
Xerxal 11 months ago
@Xerxal,
"Well, the exegesis of whoever it is you’re citing is just beyond terrible."
Hang on - are you saying that you are able to justify all of the horrific acts God committed and ordered others to commit or that you do not have time?
JanJiska 11 months ago
@JanJiska Did you not read the rest of my response?
Xerxal 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska "So if God spoke to you and told you to set fire to babies, would you?"
That's a loaded question, but, if I knew it was God speaking, then yes I hope I would have the faith to do so.
Xerxal 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
You forgot to answer:
""My argument is that Christianity is the precondition for intelligibility"
Why? Why should it be Chrianity and not some other religion? Why any religion at all?"
And
"No. I am asking how you can state that Christianity is the only correct world view when you have not studied others, indeed there are an infinite amount of them"
JanJiska 11 months ago
Sorry about the triple post. Youtube didn't look like it was accepting it, so I just kept hitting "post" over and over again.
Xerxal 1 year ago
"What’s interesting about this statement is that it is a faith claim. You have confidence that science will figure these things out (or that they already have, and you just haven’t bothered to read about it yet.) "
Why is that interesting? Did you think I believed I knew everything? I do have faith in various things and not others. Rather like you, you have complete faith in your God but not in any other ones (despite, as you said earlier, having never studied them).
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “We can either research this amazing and challenging field or we can just make up some magic and say it was that.”
It’s its own kind of magic to say, “Well, we’ll research this one of these days and then I’ll have an answer for you.” I don’t think any amount of research can answer the question I posed to you, because it was a philosophical question. On what terms is “possibility” defined in an ungoverned, atheistic universe?
Xerxal 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal
"It’s its own kind of magic to say, “Well, we’ll research this one of these days and then I’ll have an answer for you.”"
The difference is do you keep learning and trying to understand the universe or do you just assume that one specific supernatural creature does it all. Do you believe what you discover or just what you want?
"On what terms is “possibility” defined in an ungoverned, atheistic universe"
Same terms as everything else.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “it might seem irrational to you but that is because you do not understand it. Hence nothing can be relied on to be consistant as anything might be changed by your God.”
On the contrary, that just means I need to correct my understanding to better align with God’s rationality. How else could “rationality” be defined except by God’s rationality?
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"On the contrary, that just means I need to correct my understanding to better align with God’s rationality"
So you assume any change that God makes is rational, even if you cannot understand it. So God could change the laws of logic and you would then change your interpretation of rational to accept it? God could change morality to murder toddlers and you would change your view to accomodate?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska Maybe the criticism you’ve been trying to force though would have some strength if we were talking about some sort of unknowable philosophical concept of a god like Plato, Aristotle, or Spinoza’s god. Instead, I’m talking about a specific individual that has revealed Himself in a particular book and claims to have an unchanging, Holy, and rational character.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"I’m talking about a specific individual that has revealed Himself in a particular book and claims to have an unchanging, Holy, and rational character. "
How do you know he was telling the truth? Perhaps it is Loci having a laugh!!
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska When you talk about a god that’s liable to make murder good or turn the law of gravitation into a pink unicorn at the drop of a hat, we just aren’t talking about the same God, so your criticism misses the target by a parsec. If you knew Him, you wouldn’t say such things.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"When you talk about a god that’s liable to make murder good or turn the law of gravitation into a pink unicorn at the drop of a hat, we just aren’t talking about the same God"
You stated that God did things that you did not understand. He has also approved murder many times in the bible (as well as rape and kidnapping).
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “Okay, we do not have uniformity in nature.”
In the sense that the world is not the unchanging world of Parmenidies.
“Yes, do you feel that this invalidates all scientic research?”
No, as I said, I think Christianity establishes the scientific presuppositions, whereas atheism cannot.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@JanJiska “I am not a fan of the 'god of the gaps' argument which is essentially what this is.”
No, it’s not. If I operated as some sort of Rationalist, came to a problem, and said, “Okay, well here I need to posit a god of morality, and here I need to posit a god of the uniformity of nature,” then I would be committing a god of the gaps fallacy. Instead, I’m operating as a Christian, and I find that the entire Christian worldview (as it is) accounts for all of reality as it is.
Xerxal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal.
"and I find that the entire Christian worldview (as it is) accounts for all of reality as it is."
Although you have never studied other world views in as much depth so you are heavily biased. Also having a God renders all universal and scientific laws unreliable as anything could be changed at any moment for an unknown reason. Therefore this God would 'break' science as we know it.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “Science has definitive proof of its achievments throughout history. Ones which you use every day.”
If science has any historical constant, it’s that it eventually gets proven wrong by other scientists. I don’t understand how anyone could be dogmatic about any of science’s current theories (except by gross naiveté), let alone about hypothetical future theories.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"If science has any historical constant, it’s that it eventually gets proven wrong by other scientists"
Rather like science has continually proved religion wrong? People once thought that their God caused the sun to rise - that is obvious rubbish. Although their religion was just made up stories with what they thought was hard evidence that they believed ... not like yours at all
JanJiska 1 year ago
“Rather like you, you have complete faith in your God but not in any other ones (despite, as you said earlier, having never studied them).”
I refrained from responding to your earlier “spam-marked” comment because I figured you were embarrassed by it enough, but if you want to bring it up again, then fine, I’ll play along. Your original question was if I had studied any other worldviews to the same degree as I had studied Christianity. (cont)
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"I refrained from responding to your earlier “spam-marked” comment "
You also did not answer my question of how do you know you were 'touched' by the holy spirit and not some other supernatural force which merely claimed to be the holy spirit?
JanJiska 1 year ago
I answered that the only other one I had studied to the same degree was atheism, because I once lived and thought as an atheist. I’ve never been a Muslim or a Hindu, so no, I haven’t studied them as thoroughly as I have Christianity or atheism.That doesn’t mean I haven’t studied them at all, as you have presumptuously inferred. I know enough about other popular worldviews to at least be able to be able to do an internal critique of them and explain why I think they’re mistaken on their own terms
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
" I know enough about other popular worldviews to at least be able to be able to do an internal critique of them and explain why I think they’re mistaken on their own terms"
Have you spoken to the relevant theists to have your questions answered? Or did you study them simply to find a way to dismiss them? Have you listened to their opinions on why your religion might be wrong?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “How do you know he was telling the truth?”
The Christian worldview provides what Greg Bahnsen calls “the preconditions for intelligibility.” As such, I must operate within the Christian worldview if I want to make sense of reality. Within the Christian worldview, I don’t have to worry about God telling lies because it’s one of the few things the Bible says God cannot do. If you have some other worldview by which you can evaluate truth claims, then I’d like to hear of it.
Xerxal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"I don’t have to worry about God telling lies because it’s one of the few things the Bible says God cannot do."
And if he was lying when he said that in bible?
JanJiska 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“Science does not claim the universe operates by blind chance.”
I agree, because science operates in terms of a teleological theistic universe, though it often fails to affirm such. You, however, believe the universe is ungoverned, and yet events somehow occur in this ungoverned universe. How could events occur in an ungoverned universe if not by blind molecules bouncing off each other by change?
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"How could events occur in an ungoverned universe if not by blind molecules bouncing off each other by change?"
We can either research this amazing and challenging field or we can just make up some magic and say it was that. No matter how difficult or challenging I think that active scientific research is vastly superior to the god of the gaps argument.
JanJiska 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"God does things I don’t understand all the time. I don’t see the relevance of your question."
You stated that God would only change the universe in a 'rational' way. Now you agree that God might do it for a reason you do not understand i.e. it might seem irrational to you but that is because you do not understand it. Hence nothing can be relied on to be consistant as anything might be changed by your God.
JanJiska 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
" I agree that nature isn’t completely uniform "
Okay, we do not have uniformity in nature. Earlier, you said we did. In the same way that we do not have reliable abstract laws if God can change them and we have no knowledge as we cannot tell what is and is not as God might change anything at any time.
"However, science must operate with certain preconceived notions ..."
Yes, do you feel that this invalidates all scientic research?
JanJiska 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"you think it is illegitimate for me to say, by faith, that God will govern the universe He’s created rationally"
Indeed, I am not a fan of the 'god of the gaps' argument which is essentially what this is. Science does not know how the universe works! Then it must have been my God (and not anyone elses)!
"and you expect me to accept “science will figure it out”
Science has definitive proof of its achievments throughout history. Ones which you use every day.
JanJiska 1 year ago
(Cont)
From this we proceed until we get where we are now. Note, this assumes that the world is as it is and there is no super natural power which can change reality at will. If there was such a creature this knowledge would be impossible as you would be unable to know whether this creature will change any of these laws for reasons beyond understanding.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska One could ask Descartes (and you, for that matter) what else needs to be true in order for there to be thinking, existing, and investigation going on? Like you said in your last paragraph, nature needs to be uniform. The nature of existence and rationality can't spontaneously change in the middle of an investigation. So then what is the basis for the uniformity of nature?
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal
"nature needs to be uniform"
Then it cannot have an external power able to change it at will,
"The nature of existence and rationality can't spontaneously change in the middle of an investigation"
This contradicts your point about God being able to do anything he wanted.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska "I do not need an imaginary friend for my morality."
What is your morality, and why should you listen to it?
"How many have your researched to the same depth as Christianity?"
Just atheism.
Xerxal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"What is your morality, and why should you listen to it?"
It does not have a name. I listen to it because it makes me happy and life seems to work out better if I do.
"Just atheism"
So you have never researched any other religious world view. Therefore you have no way of knowing whether they provide equal or superior world views to Christianity.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska I would say, (and I think Descartes would agree with me) that it's because God created the world to be orderly, and He maintains its stability. Now if God wants to make exceptions here and there (say to change water into wine) that seems fair to me. And that doesn't mean that science is impossible, since God is the one that's allowing science to be possible in the first place.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@JanJiska Now if your problem is in submitting to the notion that God controls the universe and (oh no!) He could do anything He wanted, then yeah, it calls for faith that God will take care of us. Faith isn't a problem in my worldview, though I can understand how you might have a problem with it.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@JanJiska While I'm here, I might as well explain my claim that knowledge requires God. First, my answer depends on your conception of "knowledge." Are we talking about empirical, scientific knowledge? Then we need God to make nature uniform. Are talking about a priori knowledge? Then we need God to make abstract universal laws. Are we instead talking about knowledge that is certain? Then we need God to proclaim what is and what is not. It seems that God is necessary no matter how we come at it.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"Then we need God to make nature uniform"
God breaks this by being able to change nature at any time.
"Then we need God to make abstract universal laws"
Abstract laws are merely deductions based on experience to the best of our knowledge. If God existed he could change these rendering them useless.
"Then we need God to proclaim what is and what is not"
If God were real there would be no certainty as he could change things at will. Nothing could ever be relied upon.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska {"Then we need God to make abstract universal laws"}
"Abstract laws are merely deductions based on experience to the best of our knowledge."
You're taking an ontological question and answering it as though it were an epistemological question. I'm not asking how we go about discovering natural laws, I'm asking how it is they're out there in nature in the first place.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"I'm asking how it is they're out there in nature in the first place."
Laws are just the names we give to observed consistancies. They might not be laws, we might find out tomorrow that we are wrong about them. If you are asking why the universe is he way it is then you will need to speak to some of the expert scientist who are researchig this, I am not an expert on that field - note that this does not mean that your God is real and responsible for everything.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “you will need to speak to some of the expert scientist who are researching this”
What’s interesting about this statement is that it is a faith claim. You have confidence that science will figure these things out (or that they already have, and you just haven’t bothered to read about it yet.)
Xerxal 1 year ago
@JanJiska
For some reason, you think it is illegitimate for me to say, by faith, that God will govern the universe He’s created rationally, and you expect me to accept “science will figure it out” without giving me anything that even begins to be a response to the question.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@JanJiska "If God were real there would be no certainty as he could change things at will. Nothing could ever be relied upon."
You seem to have a huge problem with this since you didn't seem to acknowledge my earlier response to this sentiment. You should understand that the same thing is true in an ungoverned universe as well. Anything could abruptly change in an atheist universe and there would be no one able to prevent it. So your criticism cuts both ways.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"Anything could abruptly change in an atheist universe and there would be no one able to prevent it"
So you agree that God does not provide uniformity in nature, universal laws etc. Previously you claimed the opposite.
"So your criticism cuts both ways."
No, science does not claim that nature is completely uniform. It merely reports what it observes to the best of its ability. Things might well change or be wrong but science simply learns from it.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “So you agree that God does not provide uniformity in nature”
I don’t see how you would gather this from what I said. I agree that nature isn’t completely uniform in the sense that it’s the unchanging world of Parmenides. However, science must operate with certain preconceived notions about reality that must remain constant in order to get off the ground.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@JanJiska Examples include identity through change, the ability of the mind to apprehend the world, and the inductive principle. As a Christian, I believe God establishes these principles in His reality. I don’t understand how they could be established without Him.
Xerxal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xerxal,
"I believe God establishes these principles in His reality. I don’t understand how they could be established without Him."
Have you tried studying things that you do not understand, rather than just giving up and claiming God did it?
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska The difference is that I believe that if God were to change nature, He would do so according to a rational principle, it wouldn't be blind chance acting itself out.
Xerxal 1 year ago
@Xerxal,
"God were to change nature, He would do so according to a rational principle"
So you think that all seeing, all knowing, all powerful, supernatural mega being can never do something for a reason you do not understand? Seriously? You think you are smarter than your God?
"blind chance acting itself out"
Science does not claim the universe operates by blind chance. That is an idiotic straw man argument.
JanJiska 1 year ago
@JanJiska “Seriously?”
God does things I don’t understand all the time. I don’t see the relevance of your question.
Xerxal 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
Comment removed
Xerxal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JanJiska “Science does not claim the universe operates by blind chance.”
I agree, because science operates in terms of a teleological theistic universe, though it often fails to affirm such. You, however, believe the universe is ungoverned, and yet events somehow occur in this ungoverned universe. How could events occur in an ungoverned universe if not by blind molecules bouncing off each other by chance?
Xerxal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bahnsen is bitter, and should avoid ad homimen terms such as "weak" and "trying", etc. Gordon Stein is my hero! Check out Christopher Hitchens "The Portable Atheist".
iTroglobite 1 year ago
As Dr Bahnsen further points out in this debate with George Smith, the atheist's materialist metaphysical presuppositions are also in conflict. The materialist wants to say that the only things that are allowed to exist are material entities that can be empirically verified. But in so doing, he undermines rationality because "rationality" is an immaterial entity. Likewise, any argument favoring materialism is also immaterial in nature.
Xerxal 2 years ago 5
"the atheist's materialist metaphysical presuppositions are also in conflict"
To be hones this has never bothered me. I have more important things to do with my time ... like argue on YouTube.
Although your doctor failed to define why any supernatural creator that exists would turn out to be the Christian God.
JanJiska 2 years ago
I think the point made about electrons is particularly interesting because there are physical consequences to the fact that all electrons are identical. It is not just a philosophical question to ask if they all act the same, we can test a small number of electrons and, in so doing, make a statement about all electrons everywhere. This has to do with the generalized uncertainty principle and the Pauli exclusion principle.
adamredwine 2 years ago
all of this debating is besides the point. Let's talk about physical laws. The theory of relativity, or of quantum mechanics are mathematical reductions of the observations of how things interact in the real world. Gravity works in a certain way, and not another, following its nature. It's not following a "law", it's following it's nature. So trying to prove God's existence, because physical objects follow rules that are imposed by their composition, is nonsense.
stacy90800 2 years ago
How is saying 'it's just the way it is' different from saying 'God did it'? Both sides of the argument are begging the question.
seinfan9 2 years ago
Because one requires the existance of an invisitable super power who refuses to show himself lately (he was quite happy to in the OT and NT) whereas the other requires evidence based proof which can be examined and disproved by anyone.
Also "God did it" requires the question "Which God?"
JanJiska 2 years ago
The problem is that Dr Stein's epistemology is in conflict with itself. He says that the only way to support factual claims is by use of logic or reason and no circular reasoning is allowed. But Dr Stein cannot support that factual claim without the use of logic or reason--hence he's engaged in circular reasoning.
A Christian epistemology doesn't fall into these sorts of traps. There is nothing contradictory in saying God established the possibility for knowledge in His creatures.
Xerxal 2 years ago 3