U are engaged in an argument about logic and u deviate from it. This debate consist of the laws of logic. We are not defending whether God is supernatural or not.
@morehate4uall Must you atheists appeal to emotion in an attempt to make your opponents view sound ridiculous rather than engage in a rational discourse? Your use of "sky man" makes it sound as if there's a magical man floating around in the sky when you know very well that that's not the case.
Atheists are amazingly irrational. As one commenter complained about the mouse in the mousetrap, they presuppose morality but cannot justify it according to their world view. Bahnsen destroyed his apponent by logic. This is pretty easy to do against an atheist. Atheists and logic just don't get along.
Very distateful opening on the mouse being squeezed in a trap to death.... Appalling, I am shocked that people pushing their Christian god would feature that....
@juniorsti you have made a mistake. Bahnsen has been exposed for the philosophical dunce that he is time and time again on the Bahnsenburner blog. If you think atheists are stupid, and want to uphold "truth", are you not obligated to you come discuss with us there? Show us how "truthful" presup. is. After all, "the apologist throws down the gauntlet and attacks the atheist head on" Cornelius Van Til. Your washed up Greg Bahnsen sloganeering will be laid to rest as it falls on its own sword.
really funny how bahnsen talks about logic when he doesnt know what logic is...he was really a comedian in his "heart of hearts" right? haha ; ] please friends...
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your argument incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
How can you account for laws of logic? Laws of logic are statements which are descriptive of reality, they are either true or not true. If they accurately reflect reality, then they are true. We use observation to test if they accurately reflect reality. Are the laws of logic material? They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain. They attempt to describe reality, observation dictates they are true--there, logic explained, no god necessary.
How can you account for laws of logic? Laws of logic are statements which are descriptive of reality, they are either true or not true. If they accurately reflect reality, then they are true. We use observation to test if they accurately reflect reality. Are the laws of logic material? They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain. They attempt to describe reality, observation dictates they are true--there, logic explained, no god necessary.
@redsaint182 "They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain...observation dictates they are true"
That's arbitrary. How does one determine if the brain has not malfunctioned on that view of things if our brains are already fixed and controlled by such impulses?
@GenRev1611 A statement is a thought expressed. To even come up with that thought in your comment, you are relying on your brain being able to think and your sense experience. It is logically a necessary foundation. We cannot escape it.
@GenRev1611 Don't get me wrong though, you do raise a good point. It could be that our brains are messed up in some sense that prevents us from knowing absolute truth. But, as I said, it is what we have to work with, and is out logically necessary foundation for knowledge. it has its limitations, yes, but we cannot escape using it. It's necessary.
@redsaint182 Ah, but that begs the question... what is governing these electrical impulses which create the thoughts in our brains? Are they the same random and impersonal reactions which occur throughout the universe? How do random atomic reactions supply a foundation for any sort of truth? Everything is merely subjective and at the mercy of blind mechanical fate in that case. Your will is no longer necessary because all you are and all you think is solely determined by chemical reactions.
@bengphoenix I am saying that they are a logically necessary foundation. A person MUST use their senses and their brain to function. In order to even question using it as a foundation, you are then using your brain (those electrical impulses) to question the validity of those signals. So you are assuming that they can produce accurate information by even questioning if they can produce accurate information. Does that make sense?
@redsaint182 I am not denying the fact that I use my brain to function in the world. But using one's brain to function, and claiming that the brain is the source of truth and logic are radically different statements. The brain is an amazingly complex organ which allows men to think and analyze the world around him, but the brain is not capable of determining objective truth or creating universal laws of logic. Truth and logic are transcendent realites which have their source in God.
@bengphoenix You said, "the brain is not capable of determining objective truth or creating universal laws of logic." Now, do you think that that statement absolutely true? Yes or No? And did you use your brain whilst coming up with that statement? Yes or no? Your brain (and thus your sense experience and observation) are *logically necessary* foundations for knowledge. You cannot escape them. They are everyones epistemic foundations, whether they admit it or not.
@redsaint182 I believe that (my) statement is absolutely true. I dont "know it" in the sense that I "know" I'm using a keyboard to write this message. It is a statement I accept on the authority of Scripture, and thus accept it as truth. Your brain, however is not the epistemic foundation of all knowledge. Knowledge is an abstract concept, and cannot be attained without presupposing certain truths. You do not "know" that the world we live in is a reality, only that your senses perceive it so
@bengphoenix Ahh Scripture. And what are you using to learn/know scripture? Your senses and your brain. Your foundation for knowledge is sense experience, you practically just admitted it. By saying anything you explicitly imply sense experience as your foundation for knowledge.
@redsaint182 Wrong. I accept Scripture by faith. I only "know it" in as far as I believe that it is true. It's not as though I can empirically measure the reality of God, nor can you empirically prove that God does not exist. God, just like the laws of logic, is an abstract entity that must exist outside of temporal reality. When you claim that the laws of logic are by-products of human brains, you reduce their value to mere suppositions wich may or may not be true. Are human brains infallible?
@bengphoenix You said, "I accept Scripture by faith." This assumes that Scripture exists. How do you know scripture exists? You use your senses to perceive it!! Again, you are explicitly implying sense experience as your foundation for knowledge.
@bengphoenix Also, the laws of logic are statements which are either true or false (A=A.) You do not have to appeal to any sort of supernatural entity to come up with a statement. You must only come up with the statement, and test it against reality and see whether it is true or not. And as it turns out, it is true. No appeal to the supernatural necessary--only appeals to sense experience, which is everyones logically necessary foundation, yours and mine.
@redsaint182 Yes, the laws of logic determine statements of truth and untruth. But you are confused in how you arrive at such logic. You are trying to say that your organs experience the natural world, and then, by some natural process in the brain, convert that information into logical truth. But the problem is, the natural processes in your brain are not the same as the natural processes in my brain, which, by definition, would arrive at a different standard of logic (no two human brains are
@bengphoenix I didn't say the laws of logic determine statements of truth or untruth, I said the laws of logic ARE statements which are either true or not true. (If I say this computer is this computer, then that is A=A), they are statements. And when we test it on reality (using senses) we see that the statement is true. Truth isn't just subject to each individual, but our interpretation of it is. I don't presuppose logic, I explain it through senses. You try to explain it with magic (god.)...
@redsaint182 Well, now you've got quite a dilemma. You speak of truth as though it exists (which it does), yet you cannot give an account of that truth by your method. Truth and laws of logic are abstract concepts that exist weather or not your senses are involved. The reality of nature and the laws that govern thought are not dependent upon men for their existence. If people were to vanish from the earth, would truth continue? Of course it would, because the universe had to get here somehow.
@redsaint182 I agree that we use our brains to interpret the world around us, but the human brain has only limited knowledge. No one person is capable of total knowledge, nor can fallible men develop the laws of logic, lest they cease to be laws and delienate to mere personal opinon. Plus, the laws of logic are NOT "statements." They are universal abstract entities which xist whether you claim them or not.
@bengphoenix ...yet you use your senses every time. If I ask you to demonstrate the truth value of the laws of logic for me, what will you do? Meaning: don't tell me what you think their source is, etc. I want you to demonstrate their *truth value* for me. Me thinks you will appeal to your sense experience, but we will see I guess.
@redsaint182 By what standard do you ascribe truth value to anything? You've already admitted that you dont assume this world to be a reality, so where is your basis for truth coming from? You cannot claim that your foundation of truth is from your senses because all your senses do is give you information about your current surroundings. Your senses are not able to provide complete information regarding all things which occur in the universe. Your knowledge is limited, and your senses imperfect
@bengphoenix Your right, I don't assume that this world is reality. I come to the conclusion that it is most plausibly reality (as opposed to a dream, etc.) I ascribe truth value to things if they match up with reality (or we can call this body of information "System A", that our senses are drawing from.) Yes, senses give information about your current surroundings. *Getting information about your surroundings is how you learn about your surroundings!!*
@redsaint182 But how do you know which is the most plausible reality when you operate on no presuppositions of truth and laws of logic? You claim to start with a blank slate, completely neutral and without predjudice, but no one can operate with that foundation. Without presupposing certain things, all you have is the raw information about the natural world. You have no way of determining their value, whether truth or moral, only random information that your organs perceive.
@bengphoenix That information that is perceived from sense experience IS my foundation. And it is yours too. It is the single best way of learning about this universe. Why? Because it is the ONLY way we have of learning about this universe. If we have no senses, we have no input. They are logically necessary foundation for everyone. I know whats most plausible based on my sense experience and information--when I saw most plausible, it means most plausible based on current evidence/information.
@redsaint182 I reject your claim that our sense organs are man's only means of attaining knowledge. I believe true knowledge is that which transcends the natural universe, those things which are Holy. Without faith, you are bound to commit yourself to only those things pertaining to this world. I'm not denying science when I say these things, I'm quite aware that the material universe is all that we can experience with our sense organs. Organs are tools for survival, not foundations of truth.
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
@redsaint182 I'm using the mind that God gave me, yes. But to make sense of the world, and to evaluate statements of truth and logic, I must appeal to thoughts which are not material in nature. All men are responsible for their own thoughts and actions, yet you are reducing the mind of man to mere chemical reactions which are determined by blind natural causes. If you were right, then you would have no reason to be right because you are only saying what your synapses made you say
@bengphoenix Wrong again, you are using your mind, which you THINK god gave you. Theres a difference. Like I sad before, thoughts ARE material in nature, they result from the brain and electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain. Your "reason to be right" statement is a non-point, and means nothing in context of knowledge and truth.
@redsaint182 This is comical. You think just because a chemical reaction has taken place, you have some claim to objective truth? Were did these chemicals come from? What is the purpose of the processes of nature? Any statement you make is purely subjective because all you know is what your senses are telling you. You cannot contend that anything I say is wrong because there is no objective standard of truth, I'm merely saying what I am forced to say from the chemical reactons in my brain!
@bengphoenix Objective truth is objectively true independent of what we believe about it. The only way of learning about this truth is to use the tools available to us, which are senses. They are a logically necessary foundation for knowledge, and you prove that by every single attempt to refute it (since you appeal to your senses as being reliable means for knowing truth in every single statement you make, even though you try to argue against it.)
@redsaint182 I'm not denying that I'm using my brain to evaluate your argument. What I'm saying is that in order for us to reach a logical conclusion (this stands true with all claims) there needs to be a universal standard by which we reach our conclusion. If the laws of logic are only constructs of human brains, then there can be no universality of the laws of logic. If that is the case, then all claims about logical truths are merely subjective and cannot be examined or questioned.
@bengphoenix Just because thoughts are electrical impulses and chemical reactions doesn't mean they are any less valuable as thoughts. We can reduce a computer to 1's and 0's, but the functions it performs (like streaming videos) still work.
@redsaint182 Yes, but a computer is a machine, and you are a human being. Computers do not have the freedom to think for themselves and evaluate the meaning of its processes. Human minds are different than machines, they are able to think abstractly and ascribe purpose.
@bengphoenix Doesn't matter. The point still stands. My point was that you can reduce things to understand the basics of how they operate. The brain is much more complex than a computer, but we understand a lot about how it works. (Note: there are still unanswered questions about how the brain operates, but that is nothing to suggest the supernatural.) We know that the brain operates by electrical impulses and chemical reactions.
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
@redsaint182 You can cry "logically necessary foundation" all you want, but it does not change the fact that you must give a reason why your claim has any relevance to reality. It is not reasonable to say that you make your claim based solely on natural occurances in the universe, because reason involves abstract thought, not mere chemical responses.
@bengphoenix My claim has relevance because you cannot make any claim of knowledge without appealing to your senses. I have already demonstrated that. Reason is a mental faculty, a function of the brain. It is electrical impulses and chemical reactions. It is a natural process, not a supernatural one.
@redsaint182 If you cannot see that your statement here is contradictory, then I am afraid your not able to think it through. Your reasoning is circular, and it fails to explain how any thought is objectively true. All that you have is what goes on in your own brain (by your admission) which is very sad, because truth originates outside of the human mind.
@bengphoenix There is no contradiction in my statement. My statement is that sense experience is a logically necessary foundation for knowledge (knowledge being our beliefs that match absolute truth.) And there is no contradiction in that statement. The contradiction in your statements is that you appeal to sense experience with *every single point you try to make*, which invalidates your claim that sense experience isn't your foundation.
@redsaint182 You're a bit mixed up still. You speak of absolute truth as though it exists, yet you cannot give an account of it with your method. The same goes for the laws of logic. You do not manufacture truth or logic within your organs, whether it be your brain, or liver, or whatever, rather you appeal to these concepts based on the information your organs receive. Truth and the laws of logic already exist, regardless whether or not you personally experience the material world.
@bengphoenix Yes, I can give an account of truth.) I can know that I am perceiving information through perception, and since truth is defined as "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs", then statements are considered true or false based on their accordance with all that information I am perceiving (which is the universe as perceived through the senses)
@redsaint182 But you've already admitted that you dont assume this world to be a reality. There is no "actual state of affairs" when you cannot even assume this world to be a reality. In order to compare sensory information with statements about reality, it is only obvious that you must assume this world to be a reality. And it remains a frustration to me that you cannot see that your own personal interpretation of the environment is not the standard for truth in tis world.
@bengphoenix Right, I don't "assume" this world is reality, I come to the conclusion that that is most plausibly true. Its not an assumption. Could it be that this is some sort of dream, a "System B", and when I wake, I'll be in "System A, real reality"? Maybe, but then when I was in that System A, I could ask the same question, Is this a dream? And I could keep doing that, and it would be an infinite regress, which is impossible. AFAIK, this is reality, I have come to that **conclusion**
@redsaint182 If this world is only a possible reality, then you and your statements are only a possible realities. If you're statements are only a possible realities, then I reject everything you say because it has no basis in reality. And how do you assume that this reality is plausible if it it is only possible? Wouldn't any "possible" reality be just as plausble?
@bengphoenix This reality is the only reality we know of, we have not seen any evidence for some other reality. This being reality is most plausibly true based on current evidence.
@bengphoenix Yes, truth originates outside the human mind. And our sense experience is how we experience what is going on. I have demonstrated that time and time again, and so have you with your statements.
@redsaint182 If truth originates outside the human mind, where does it come from? So far you have argued that truth and logic are mere constructs of the human brain, and that these concepts are controlled by blind mechanical processes. Give me a clear answer where truth comes from if not from the human mind? Keep in mind that truth is not a material entity, so you cannot appeal to electrical impulses.
@bengphoenix Wrong wrong wrong!!! I did not argue that truth is a construct of the human brain!! Where are you getting that from? I argued that we use sense experience (and our brains) to DISCOVER what is true and not true. I didn't say that truth is just a construct. Truth means "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs," and we discover what the actual state of affairs is by sense experience.
@redsaint182 Ok, that's fair. But it stands to question, why do you believe that there is truth in the world: that is, objective truth in the world? For truth to be objective, it must have its source outside of fallible human minds, yet truth in that sense is not material in it's nature. In order to adhere to a position which accepts claims abut objective truth, you must believe (by faith in the immaterial) that it does in fact exist.
@bengphoenix "... yet truth in that sense is not material in its nature." WHAAA??? Yes it is material in nature!!!! This computer in front of me is material in nature, this house I'm in is material in nature, we are material in nature, it is true that they are there, things outside the brain are still material in nature. No, I don't have to believe by faith that the immaterial exists. Thats ridiculous.
@redsaint182 Oh, that computer in front of you is truely there? I thought you didn't assume the material universe to be a reality? Are you now assuming that computer to be a reality? Sounds very much like you do assume things
@bengphoenix We already talked about this, I didn't ASSUME it was reality, I CONCLUDED it was reality. It is a justified belief, not an assumption or a presupposition.
@bengphoenix No, the evidence isn't meaningless. Okay, I will walk you through the steps. STEP 1 - Existence. There is Perception. Perception requires a Perceiver. So there is a perceiver, and that perceiver is me (or you in your case.) That is how we can know we exist. Next, I will make a new comment for it...
@redsaint182 Once again you operate on assumption. In your worldview, you are nothing more than a collection of atomic particles confined to a limited space. You are, so to speak, no different than the rest of the non-living universe, except that your particles happen to be organized and to act in a certain way. And so, you must therefor, as a purely material being, ASSUME that you too are a reality. This sounds absurd to argue, but if you are to stay consistent with your worldview you cannot..
@bengphoenix Wrong, i don't have to assume things. I concluded that I exist, and that this is most plausibly reality, based on sense perception, which is the foundation for all knowledge, which we have already talked about. I reject your claims that I have to assume that I exist. I demonstrated the existence of a perceiver.
@redsaint182 ..anything, including your own existence. What gives "system A" the right to make claims about absolute truth when "system A" has proved itself to be imperfect?
@bengphoenix Next has to do with concluding what reality is. We do perceive things, but how do we know they are reality as opposed to a dream or a matrix kind of thing? Well, a hypothesis cannot be unfalsifiable in order to be valid, and the idea that there is some reality beyond this one and that this is a dream, while its possible its true, is an unfalsifiable claim. It's not a valid hypothesis, whereas this being reality IS a valid hypothesis.
@bengphoenix .... because it could be falsified by waking up/coming out of the matrix/ whatever. So, lets wonder what happens if we are in a dream, and there is a reality outside this one that is really real. What happens when we wake up? We can ask the same question "is this real" but we cannot have an infinite regress. We exist, there must be a real reality, and since this is the only one we know about, we can say, according to current evidence, this is the only one that's most plausibly true.
@redsaint182 Once again, you only assume that you exist. There is nothing in your worldview that provides foundation for universal truth, and therefor you can say only that you "might" exist. You go from (you pretend to go from) a completely nuetral and unbiased starting point, then establish "truths" and "proofs" from there. How do you justify something as true without first having an objective standard by which to measure?
@bengphoenix I already demonstrated that I exist. Also, absolute truth exists, most atheists (at least I) do not reject absolute truth. So, as you can see, all the information in your posts has to be rejected, because it is all invalid. I demonstrated that I exist, I demonstrated that this reality is most plausibly reality, I demonstrated that sense perception is the logically necessary foundation of knowledge for everyone, even you. And you haven't refuted any of that, I havent made assumptions
@bengphoenix So, I didn't assume that it was reality. I started out acknowledging that it might be reality, it might not be reality, and then I went from there with what evidence I have, and that evidence points to this BEING reality. It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on the evidence so far. It is a justified belief, which is the only kind anyone should have. To have a more rational view, please purge the unjustified beliefs from your world view today...
@redsaint182 What unjustified beliefs? In your worldview, nothing is justified because there is no absolute truth by which to measure your claims. You can make observations about the physical world, but you can give no account of why those observations are true, nor whether thay can be assumed to be true at any given moment. This "might" be reality, which means that YOU "might" be reality, which means that any claim you make towards the truth about existence only "might" be true.
@bengphoenix WRONG. You claimed that there is no absolute truth according to my worldview, and that in plain wrong. I believe absolute truth exists. And I already gave accounts of why sense experience leads to knowledge. I can say certain things are most plausibly true based on the current evidence. And I don't "assume" things to be true, you haven't pointed out a single thing I have assumed. I exist. The information I perceive is most plausibly reality.
@bengphoenix I'd also like to go one step further and say that YOU cannot account for absolute truth in your world view, the laws of logic, or any of that stuff, because appealing to "magic" is NEVER accounting for something, it is a cop out of trying to find a real answer. Thats why your argument is an elaborate "God of the gaps" argument. Even if someone else couldn't explain these things, that doesn't mean you get to insert god into that gap of knowledge. So your view fails on that level too.
@bengphoenix My statement still stands that "sense experience is a logically necessary foundation for gaining knowledge.", as in the past two posts, you have tried to say I must "assume" things (I don't, I conclude things), and that I must accept immaterial things by faith (I don't, the things outside our brain are still material.) So I reject both of your last two "points", they do not seem to be valid.
@redsaint182 You contradict yourself here. You claim that you don't assume things, but then you go ahead and assume that the conclusions you make are true. By what standard are your conclusions true? Are they solely up to you to decide? Is it that you decide for yourself what is true and then verify it by the things you experience? If truth exists, objective truth, then it must be true regardless of personal experience. Therefor, "sense experience...." is not the logical foundation for knowledge
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
@bengphoenix You prove my point again. By using your brain to evaluate and reject a proposition, you are using your mental faculties, which rely on some original sense input to function properly. By attempting to reject my statement about sense experience, you are in fact relying on sense experience to make your rejection, which invalidates your rejection and proves my point further. You are using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge.
@redsaint182 Wrong. I reject your claim because of my worldview, because of my belief, not because I've reasoned from my own sensory data. You fail to see how your personal experience of the universe is incapable of establishing any objective truth, and that truth, as an absolute, is an abstract concept not found in the material world. You must rely on something other than your senses when appealing to truth or laws of logic, because these concepts are not physically measurable.
@bengphoenix Your world view is your evaluation of reality, and what you believe about it. It is decided upon and formed using your brain, which relies upon sensory input. Concepts, abstract as they are, are material--they are thoughts, which are electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain, which are stored in memory, which is also a mental faculty by electrical impulses in the brain.
@redsaint182 My worldview is formed by my belief in the authority of Scripture. My thoughts are my own responsibility, I am not bound to think only those things which are determined by blind natural forces. I see the world around me, and the value of using my sense organs, but I also believe that there is a greater reality beyond what human organs can perceive. My views are validated by the Spirit of God who testifies to the reality of the Word.
@bengphoenix "My worldview is formed...." -- and how do you know that Scripture even exists? *sense experience* You appeal to sense experience every time lol. Your worldview is based on sense experience, and your blind acceptance of one book you happened to come across in that wealth of information your senses have delivered to you. Your thoughts *ARE* natural. Yes, you *believe* there is a greater reality, but you don't have evidence to support that. It's just a belief without justification.
@bengphoenix Also, you *believe* your views are validated by the holy spirit, but they probably aren't. Belief in supernatural experience is a common natural phenomenon, we see it in many cultures and religions, all claiming to have some kind of supernatural experience. They cannot all be right, so we know many are wrong. SO we know of this natural phenomenon of convincing themselves of supernatural experience when there really isn't any. Yours is also most plausibly this natural phenomenon.
@redsaint182 You have every right to believe that. Everyone would believe this way if not for the work of God within believers. No one can convince an unregenerate heart to repent and believe the gospel, only the power of God can do this. Probability is irrelevent when dealing with God, for God is not bound by the restrictions we face. He does whatsoever He pleases, and we aren't in any position to question it (we ought not.)
@bengphoenix I also never claimed that my senses could provide my with all the answers. I only said that it is a logically necessary foundation for knowledge. Yes my knowledge is limited, yes my senses imperfect. *But thats not the issue here* The issue here is that its all we have to go on. Its a logically necessary foundation. You are just as limited as I am in that sense. Also, just because we are limited doesn't mean that we cannot know things. Just means we aren't omniscient.
@redsaint182 Wrong. The necessary foundation for knowledge is "the fear of the Lord," (Pro. 1:7). We use our senses to make observations about the natural world, but all people employ their senses with presuppositions about reality. It is only because you know, deep down, that God is true that you are able to function in this world. The fact that you deny Him only reinforces the message of the Bible, which claims that you are blinded from this truth by the power of Satan.
@bengphoenix Your proving my point even more. By trying to quote any Bible verse, you are using sense experience to read that verse. Your foundation is sense experience, and you just happen to believe this book written thousands of years ago, even when it doesn't add up with reality. No, I don't believe in god deep down, and no, I am not under the influence of devils, leprechauns, pixies, of fairies. You appealed to sense experience yet again as your foundation for knowledge.
@redsaint182 Yes, you do know God, deep down. He is inescapable because He is the source of all things, including your body and soul. You are unable to believe this because you are blinded by the passions of your mortal body. The devil convinces you that this world is all you need. Its been this way since the garden of Eden, but, then again, you believe this to be only a fairy tale. My faith is based on the working of the Spirit of God. My senses cannot detect God, only through faith.
@bengphoenix No, wrong. In the same way that you don't believe in Leprechauns, even deep down, I also do not believe in god(s), even deep down. You have asserted that a god is the source of all things, but have not demonstrated it, so I reject your proposition. I also reject your propositions about devils and magical gardens for the same reason.
@redsaint182 The demonstration is in all things created, aswell as in the consciousness of men. The fact that you are unable to believe is a testimony to God's sovereign elective purposes. But I'll pray for you.
@bengphoenix The demonstration is not in all things or consciousness. You cannot just point at something and say "See, God MUST have done it" that is a fallacy. How do you know these things were not FORMED naturally, instead of created? Because all the evidence suggests that things do NOT have supernatural origins. We know about how men are formed, and it has nothing to do with magic supernatural stuff.
@redsaint182 Ok, where did material substances come from? Where did they originate? For a person of faith, the evidence certainly does testify to the truth of God, who is powerful enough to change the heart (and mind) of even the most hardened skeptic. I need to get going, and I hope to continue later
@bengphoenix "Where did material substances come from?" That is an excellent question, but irrelevant to our discussion, as this is a question that *we must use our senses to discover the answer to.*
@redsaint182 If the origin of the universe is not knowable through empirical data, then I'd say its a very relevent question. You either accept some things on faith, or you claim that it cannot be known (and therefor absolute truth cannot be known.)
@bengphoenix I never said the origins of the universe is not knowable through empirical data. I just said its irrelevant to our discussion, and it is. And admitting that you don't know the answer to something doesn't mean that absolute truth cannot be known, it just means you don't know that one thing.
@bengphoenix Also, my rejection of your claims is testimony to and based solely on your failure to provide sufficient evidence for your claims. My rejection of leprechauns is based on the same thing, and it isn't a testimony to leprechauns power, and my rejection of Allah/Krishna/Brahman and the sort are based on the same thing, and it isn't a testimony to their "sovereignty" either.
@redsaint182 God is an immaterial being. You have displayed an utter refusal to accept anything that does not leave empirical evidence of itself. This is because, as I stated already, you presuppose that God is not true and then build your worldview based on that. It is an inescapable truth that you are either for God, or against Him. If you want to adhere to a purely materialistic view, then you must deny that truth absolute truth can be known and that all that is said is purely subjective
@bengphoenix I also do not presuppose that god is not true. I don't presuppose anything about the existence of god. I listen to the claim, and if there is evidence for it, I accept it, if there isn't sufficient evidence, then i don't accept it. Its not a presupposition, its a conclusion based on the evidence or lack thereof.
@bengphoenix Also, faith is not a good tool for gaining knowledge. Faith is, by definition, a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. If I tell you "Leprechauns exist" and don't prove it, you must accept it if your standard is faith. i can also tell you that they don't exist, which you also must accept. This leads you to contradictory and incorrect views. Thus, faith is not a good tool for determining truth, as demonstrated here. I reject it as a valid justification for belief.
@redsaint182 Faith is the only tool for attaining knowledge of God. It's impossible to know God apart form faith. Your comparison of God to a leprechaun is a fallacious one, for no one is claiming God to be a material being. Faith is the only tool for determining truth, because no one is capable of knowing it on their own. The truth lies in God, along with love, and forgiveness, and eternal life.
@bengphoenix Leprechaun, by the definition I was using, is an invisible immaterial being that is allergic to tacos and cannot tie its shoes. It isn't a material being. The connection the two beings have is this: Neither has been demonstrated to exist. My comparison still stands.
@bengphoenix And since my comparison still stands, my reason for calling faith a useless tool for attaining knowledge still stands as well. If you really were consistent with accepting things on faith, you would believe in Zeus and Krishna and Ra as well. Faith is a useless tool for knowledge, and I have demonstrated that, and my demonstration still stands, as you have not successfully rebutted it.
@redsaint182 You should know this about Christians. Its not as though we read the Bible and compare it to othr works of men to verify it. We read the Bible and submit to it's truth because we believe it is the very Word of God. If you think that modern science disproves the truth of the Bible, you're quite mistaken, and if you think the Bible is not an accurate depiction of man's lost condition and need for salvation, you're wrong again. But nothing I can say will convince you, only God can.
@bengphoenix You could convince me by giving sufficient evidence, thus providing sufficient justification for acceptance of the claim. Claims should only be accepted as true when they are demonstrated to be true. Also, there are many cases, scientific and historical, which discredit the authenticity of the Bible.
@bengphoenix I would also like to say that I know quite a bit about Christians, seeing as I used to be one for over 10 years, and that most of my family are Christians as well. :)
@redsaint182 ...identical.) So if you've developed logic in your brain, and I've developed logic in my brain, and everyone else in the world has developed logic in their brains, who's logic is the right one? If that is the case, then there can be no universal Laws of Logic, because all logic is subject to each individual. I may just as well say that A=non A because thats what my brain is telling me. But that's not what really happens. What really happens is that you "assume," or presuppose logic
@bengphoenix Also, I don't presuppose that the world we live in is reality either. I receive information from my senses, and these senses are directly correlated to organs (such as eyes, nerves, ears, etc.) and these organs will not generate input on their own. So whatever they are receiving input from, we can call it "System A" if you don't like the word reality, is the system or body of information I am interested in learning about, because it is the only one we are aware of.
@redsaint182 So this reality "that we are aware of" may or may not be reality at all? That doesn't sound like a good starting point for attaining knowledge. Plus, how can we trust the senses of our organs if those organs are only possible realities? And where is the input coming from if not from the organs you have already mentioned?
@bengphoenix Input is being sent to our brains through those organs. And those organs cannot create information on their own, rather they can only relay information/input. Whatever body of information that input is coming from, I define as "System A", and say that as far as i know, this is reality, and this is what I want to learn about. We have no knowledge of any "System" beyond this one.
How can you account for laws of logic? Laws of logic are statements which are descriptive of reality, they are either true or not true. If they accurately reflect reality, then they are true. We use observation to test if they accurately reflect reality. Are the laws of logic material? They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain. They attempt to describe reality, they are either true or not true. And observation dictates that they are true.
How can you account for laws of logic? Laws of logic are statements which are descriptive of reality, they are either true or not true. If they accurately reflect reality, then they are true. We use observation to test if they accurately reflect reality. Are the laws of logic material? They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain. They attempt to describe reality, they are either true or not true. And observation dictates that they are true.
@morehate4uall
U are engaged in an argument about logic and u deviate from it. This debate consist of the laws of logic. We are not defending whether God is supernatural or not.
itiswritten77 2 months ago
WTH with the mouse?! That was brutal..
33SaintBernards 6 months ago
@morehate4uall Must you atheists appeal to emotion in an attempt to make your opponents view sound ridiculous rather than engage in a rational discourse? Your use of "sky man" makes it sound as if there's a magical man floating around in the sky when you know very well that that's not the case.
YHWHisSovereign 10 months ago
Atheists are amazingly irrational. As one commenter complained about the mouse in the mousetrap, they presuppose morality but cannot justify it according to their world view. Bahnsen destroyed his apponent by logic. This is pretty easy to do against an atheist. Atheists and logic just don't get along.
YHWHisSovereign 11 months ago
Very distateful opening on the mouse being squeezed in a trap to death.... Appalling, I am shocked that people pushing their Christian god would feature that....
I am disgusted with the lot of you....
TampaCary 11 months ago
Comment removed
joelthomaspeterson 8 months ago
@TampaCary *The only true God and what does a mouse being trapped have to do with Him?
Hoogz20 2 months ago
mmmmm cheeseeeee
whispers83 1 year ago
Brilliant clip showing the stupidity of atheists.
Hopefully one day they'll get it through their head that every time they reference logic they conceed to the defeat of their pathetic beliefs.
juniorsti 1 year ago
Comment removed
davelantor 11 months ago
@juniorsti you have made a mistake. Bahnsen has been exposed for the philosophical dunce that he is time and time again on the Bahnsenburner blog. If you think atheists are stupid, and want to uphold "truth", are you not obligated to you come discuss with us there? Show us how "truthful" presup. is. After all, "the apologist throws down the gauntlet and attacks the atheist head on" Cornelius Van Til. Your washed up Greg Bahnsen sloganeering will be laid to rest as it falls on its own sword.
actionjackson864 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY I pray that you will know him.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY Actually, there is. His name is Jesus Christ. Don't you know him?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
really funny how bahnsen talks about logic when he doesnt know what logic is...he was really a comedian in his "heart of hearts" right? haha ; ] please friends...
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your argument incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
actionjackson864 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can you account for laws of logic? Laws of logic are statements which are descriptive of reality, they are either true or not true. If they accurately reflect reality, then they are true. We use observation to test if they accurately reflect reality. Are the laws of logic material? They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain. They attempt to describe reality, observation dictates they are true--there, logic explained, no god necessary.
redsaint182 1 year ago
How can you account for laws of logic? Laws of logic are statements which are descriptive of reality, they are either true or not true. If they accurately reflect reality, then they are true. We use observation to test if they accurately reflect reality. Are the laws of logic material? They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain. They attempt to describe reality, observation dictates they are true--there, logic explained, no god necessary.
redsaint182 1 year ago
Comment removed
GenRev1611 1 year ago
Comment removed
GenRev1611 1 year ago
@GenRev1611 To even come up with that statement, you are relying on your brain being able to provide accurate information.
redsaint182 1 year ago
Comment removed
GenRev1611 1 year ago
@redsaint182 "They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain...observation dictates they are true"
That's arbitrary. How does one determine if the brain has not malfunctioned on that view of things if our brains are already fixed and controlled by such impulses?
GenRev1611 1 year ago
@GenRev1611 A statement is a thought expressed. To even come up with that thought in your comment, you are relying on your brain being able to think and your sense experience. It is logically a necessary foundation. We cannot escape it.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 I mean't "our logically necessary foundation"* in the last comment.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@GenRev1611 Don't get me wrong though, you do raise a good point. It could be that our brains are messed up in some sense that prevents us from knowing absolute truth. But, as I said, it is what we have to work with, and is out logically necessary foundation for knowledge. it has its limitations, yes, but we cannot escape using it. It's necessary.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Ah, but that begs the question... what is governing these electrical impulses which create the thoughts in our brains? Are they the same random and impersonal reactions which occur throughout the universe? How do random atomic reactions supply a foundation for any sort of truth? Everything is merely subjective and at the mercy of blind mechanical fate in that case. Your will is no longer necessary because all you are and all you think is solely determined by chemical reactions.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I am saying that they are a logically necessary foundation. A person MUST use their senses and their brain to function. In order to even question using it as a foundation, you are then using your brain (those electrical impulses) to question the validity of those signals. So you are assuming that they can produce accurate information by even questioning if they can produce accurate information. Does that make sense?
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 I am not denying the fact that I use my brain to function in the world. But using one's brain to function, and claiming that the brain is the source of truth and logic are radically different statements. The brain is an amazingly complex organ which allows men to think and analyze the world around him, but the brain is not capable of determining objective truth or creating universal laws of logic. Truth and logic are transcendent realites which have their source in God.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix You said, "the brain is not capable of determining objective truth or creating universal laws of logic." Now, do you think that that statement absolutely true? Yes or No? And did you use your brain whilst coming up with that statement? Yes or no? Your brain (and thus your sense experience and observation) are *logically necessary* foundations for knowledge. You cannot escape them. They are everyones epistemic foundations, whether they admit it or not.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 I believe that (my) statement is absolutely true. I dont "know it" in the sense that I "know" I'm using a keyboard to write this message. It is a statement I accept on the authority of Scripture, and thus accept it as truth. Your brain, however is not the epistemic foundation of all knowledge. Knowledge is an abstract concept, and cannot be attained without presupposing certain truths. You do not "know" that the world we live in is a reality, only that your senses perceive it so
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Ahh Scripture. And what are you using to learn/know scripture? Your senses and your brain. Your foundation for knowledge is sense experience, you practically just admitted it. By saying anything you explicitly imply sense experience as your foundation for knowledge.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Wrong. I accept Scripture by faith. I only "know it" in as far as I believe that it is true. It's not as though I can empirically measure the reality of God, nor can you empirically prove that God does not exist. God, just like the laws of logic, is an abstract entity that must exist outside of temporal reality. When you claim that the laws of logic are by-products of human brains, you reduce their value to mere suppositions wich may or may not be true. Are human brains infallible?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix You said, "I accept Scripture by faith." This assumes that Scripture exists. How do you know scripture exists? You use your senses to perceive it!! Again, you are explicitly implying sense experience as your foundation for knowledge.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Also, the laws of logic are statements which are either true or false (A=A.) You do not have to appeal to any sort of supernatural entity to come up with a statement. You must only come up with the statement, and test it against reality and see whether it is true or not. And as it turns out, it is true. No appeal to the supernatural necessary--only appeals to sense experience, which is everyones logically necessary foundation, yours and mine.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 I gotta go to bed, I'll respond in the morning
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Yes, the laws of logic determine statements of truth and untruth. But you are confused in how you arrive at such logic. You are trying to say that your organs experience the natural world, and then, by some natural process in the brain, convert that information into logical truth. But the problem is, the natural processes in your brain are not the same as the natural processes in my brain, which, by definition, would arrive at a different standard of logic (no two human brains are
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I didn't say the laws of logic determine statements of truth or untruth, I said the laws of logic ARE statements which are either true or not true. (If I say this computer is this computer, then that is A=A), they are statements. And when we test it on reality (using senses) we see that the statement is true. Truth isn't just subject to each individual, but our interpretation of it is. I don't presuppose logic, I explain it through senses. You try to explain it with magic (god.)...
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Well, now you've got quite a dilemma. You speak of truth as though it exists (which it does), yet you cannot give an account of that truth by your method. Truth and laws of logic are abstract concepts that exist weather or not your senses are involved. The reality of nature and the laws that govern thought are not dependent upon men for their existence. If people were to vanish from the earth, would truth continue? Of course it would, because the universe had to get here somehow.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@redsaint182 I agree that we use our brains to interpret the world around us, but the human brain has only limited knowledge. No one person is capable of total knowledge, nor can fallible men develop the laws of logic, lest they cease to be laws and delienate to mere personal opinon. Plus, the laws of logic are NOT "statements." They are universal abstract entities which xist whether you claim them or not.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix ...yet you use your senses every time. If I ask you to demonstrate the truth value of the laws of logic for me, what will you do? Meaning: don't tell me what you think their source is, etc. I want you to demonstrate their *truth value* for me. Me thinks you will appeal to your sense experience, but we will see I guess.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 By what standard do you ascribe truth value to anything? You've already admitted that you dont assume this world to be a reality, so where is your basis for truth coming from? You cannot claim that your foundation of truth is from your senses because all your senses do is give you information about your current surroundings. Your senses are not able to provide complete information regarding all things which occur in the universe. Your knowledge is limited, and your senses imperfect
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Your right, I don't assume that this world is reality. I come to the conclusion that it is most plausibly reality (as opposed to a dream, etc.) I ascribe truth value to things if they match up with reality (or we can call this body of information "System A", that our senses are drawing from.) Yes, senses give information about your current surroundings. *Getting information about your surroundings is how you learn about your surroundings!!*
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 But how do you know which is the most plausible reality when you operate on no presuppositions of truth and laws of logic? You claim to start with a blank slate, completely neutral and without predjudice, but no one can operate with that foundation. Without presupposing certain things, all you have is the raw information about the natural world. You have no way of determining their value, whether truth or moral, only random information that your organs perceive.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix That information that is perceived from sense experience IS my foundation. And it is yours too. It is the single best way of learning about this universe. Why? Because it is the ONLY way we have of learning about this universe. If we have no senses, we have no input. They are logically necessary foundation for everyone. I know whats most plausible based on my sense experience and information--when I saw most plausible, it means most plausible based on current evidence/information.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 I reject your claim that our sense organs are man's only means of attaining knowledge. I believe true knowledge is that which transcends the natural universe, those things which are Holy. Without faith, you are bound to commit yourself to only those things pertaining to this world. I'm not denying science when I say these things, I'm quite aware that the material universe is all that we can experience with our sense organs. Organs are tools for survival, not foundations of truth.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
redsaint182 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 I'm using the mind that God gave me, yes. But to make sense of the world, and to evaluate statements of truth and logic, I must appeal to thoughts which are not material in nature. All men are responsible for their own thoughts and actions, yet you are reducing the mind of man to mere chemical reactions which are determined by blind natural causes. If you were right, then you would have no reason to be right because you are only saying what your synapses made you say
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Wrong again, you are using your mind, which you THINK god gave you. Theres a difference. Like I sad before, thoughts ARE material in nature, they result from the brain and electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain. Your "reason to be right" statement is a non-point, and means nothing in context of knowledge and truth.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 This is comical. You think just because a chemical reaction has taken place, you have some claim to objective truth? Were did these chemicals come from? What is the purpose of the processes of nature? Any statement you make is purely subjective because all you know is what your senses are telling you. You cannot contend that anything I say is wrong because there is no objective standard of truth, I'm merely saying what I am forced to say from the chemical reactons in my brain!
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Objective truth is objectively true independent of what we believe about it. The only way of learning about this truth is to use the tools available to us, which are senses. They are a logically necessary foundation for knowledge, and you prove that by every single attempt to refute it (since you appeal to your senses as being reliable means for knowing truth in every single statement you make, even though you try to argue against it.)
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 I'm not denying that I'm using my brain to evaluate your argument. What I'm saying is that in order for us to reach a logical conclusion (this stands true with all claims) there needs to be a universal standard by which we reach our conclusion. If the laws of logic are only constructs of human brains, then there can be no universality of the laws of logic. If that is the case, then all claims about logical truths are merely subjective and cannot be examined or questioned.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Just because thoughts are electrical impulses and chemical reactions doesn't mean they are any less valuable as thoughts. We can reduce a computer to 1's and 0's, but the functions it performs (like streaming videos) still work.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Yes, but a computer is a machine, and you are a human being. Computers do not have the freedom to think for themselves and evaluate the meaning of its processes. Human minds are different than machines, they are able to think abstractly and ascribe purpose.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Doesn't matter. The point still stands. My point was that you can reduce things to understand the basics of how they operate. The brain is much more complex than a computer, but we understand a lot about how it works. (Note: there are still unanswered questions about how the brain operates, but that is nothing to suggest the supernatural.) We know that the brain operates by electrical impulses and chemical reactions.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix and my point was also that even though we can understand the basics of how something operates, that doesn't invalidate its function.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 You can cry "logically necessary foundation" all you want, but it does not change the fact that you must give a reason why your claim has any relevance to reality. It is not reasonable to say that you make your claim based solely on natural occurances in the universe, because reason involves abstract thought, not mere chemical responses.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix My claim has relevance because you cannot make any claim of knowledge without appealing to your senses. I have already demonstrated that. Reason is a mental faculty, a function of the brain. It is electrical impulses and chemical reactions. It is a natural process, not a supernatural one.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 If you cannot see that your statement here is contradictory, then I am afraid your not able to think it through. Your reasoning is circular, and it fails to explain how any thought is objectively true. All that you have is what goes on in your own brain (by your admission) which is very sad, because truth originates outside of the human mind.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix There is no contradiction in my statement. My statement is that sense experience is a logically necessary foundation for knowledge (knowledge being our beliefs that match absolute truth.) And there is no contradiction in that statement. The contradiction in your statements is that you appeal to sense experience with *every single point you try to make*, which invalidates your claim that sense experience isn't your foundation.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 You're a bit mixed up still. You speak of absolute truth as though it exists, yet you cannot give an account of it with your method. The same goes for the laws of logic. You do not manufacture truth or logic within your organs, whether it be your brain, or liver, or whatever, rather you appeal to these concepts based on the information your organs receive. Truth and the laws of logic already exist, regardless whether or not you personally experience the material world.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Yes, I can give an account of truth.) I can know that I am perceiving information through perception, and since truth is defined as "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs", then statements are considered true or false based on their accordance with all that information I am perceiving (which is the universe as perceived through the senses)
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 But you've already admitted that you dont assume this world to be a reality. There is no "actual state of affairs" when you cannot even assume this world to be a reality. In order to compare sensory information with statements about reality, it is only obvious that you must assume this world to be a reality. And it remains a frustration to me that you cannot see that your own personal interpretation of the environment is not the standard for truth in tis world.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Right, I don't "assume" this world is reality, I come to the conclusion that that is most plausibly true. Its not an assumption. Could it be that this is some sort of dream, a "System B", and when I wake, I'll be in "System A, real reality"? Maybe, but then when I was in that System A, I could ask the same question, Is this a dream? And I could keep doing that, and it would be an infinite regress, which is impossible. AFAIK, this is reality, I have come to that **conclusion**
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 If this world is only a possible reality, then you and your statements are only a possible realities. If you're statements are only a possible realities, then I reject everything you say because it has no basis in reality. And how do you assume that this reality is plausible if it it is only possible? Wouldn't any "possible" reality be just as plausble?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix This reality is the only reality we know of, we have not seen any evidence for some other reality. This being reality is most plausibly true based on current evidence.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Based on your assumption that this is indeed reality. Otherwise, why would your evidence be valid?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix and other "possible" realities are not plausible, because there is no evidence for them, while there is evidence for this one.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Evidence for this "supposed" reality. BUt then again if you dont suppose this to be reality, then your evidence is meaningless.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Yes, truth originates outside the human mind. And our sense experience is how we experience what is going on. I have demonstrated that time and time again, and so have you with your statements.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 If truth originates outside the human mind, where does it come from? So far you have argued that truth and logic are mere constructs of the human brain, and that these concepts are controlled by blind mechanical processes. Give me a clear answer where truth comes from if not from the human mind? Keep in mind that truth is not a material entity, so you cannot appeal to electrical impulses.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Wrong wrong wrong!!! I did not argue that truth is a construct of the human brain!! Where are you getting that from? I argued that we use sense experience (and our brains) to DISCOVER what is true and not true. I didn't say that truth is just a construct. Truth means "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs," and we discover what the actual state of affairs is by sense experience.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Ok, that's fair. But it stands to question, why do you believe that there is truth in the world: that is, objective truth in the world? For truth to be objective, it must have its source outside of fallible human minds, yet truth in that sense is not material in it's nature. In order to adhere to a position which accepts claims abut objective truth, you must believe (by faith in the immaterial) that it does in fact exist.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix "... yet truth in that sense is not material in its nature." WHAAA??? Yes it is material in nature!!!! This computer in front of me is material in nature, this house I'm in is material in nature, we are material in nature, it is true that they are there, things outside the brain are still material in nature. No, I don't have to believe by faith that the immaterial exists. Thats ridiculous.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Oh, that computer in front of you is truely there? I thought you didn't assume the material universe to be a reality? Are you now assuming that computer to be a reality? Sounds very much like you do assume things
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix We already talked about this, I didn't ASSUME it was reality, I CONCLUDED it was reality. It is a justified belief, not an assumption or a presupposition.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 How did you conclude it to be reality if you had not first assumed reality to be this particular material universe?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix No, the evidence isn't meaningless. Okay, I will walk you through the steps. STEP 1 - Existence. There is Perception. Perception requires a Perceiver. So there is a perceiver, and that perceiver is me (or you in your case.) That is how we can know we exist. Next, I will make a new comment for it...
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Once again you operate on assumption. In your worldview, you are nothing more than a collection of atomic particles confined to a limited space. You are, so to speak, no different than the rest of the non-living universe, except that your particles happen to be organized and to act in a certain way. And so, you must therefor, as a purely material being, ASSUME that you too are a reality. This sounds absurd to argue, but if you are to stay consistent with your worldview you cannot..
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Wrong, i don't have to assume things. I concluded that I exist, and that this is most plausibly reality, based on sense perception, which is the foundation for all knowledge, which we have already talked about. I reject your claims that I have to assume that I exist. I demonstrated the existence of a perceiver.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 ..anything, including your own existence. What gives "system A" the right to make claims about absolute truth when "system A" has proved itself to be imperfect?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix "System A" has proved itself to be imperfect??? What are you talking about?
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Next has to do with concluding what reality is. We do perceive things, but how do we know they are reality as opposed to a dream or a matrix kind of thing? Well, a hypothesis cannot be unfalsifiable in order to be valid, and the idea that there is some reality beyond this one and that this is a dream, while its possible its true, is an unfalsifiable claim. It's not a valid hypothesis, whereas this being reality IS a valid hypothesis.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix .... because it could be falsified by waking up/coming out of the matrix/ whatever. So, lets wonder what happens if we are in a dream, and there is a reality outside this one that is really real. What happens when we wake up? We can ask the same question "is this real" but we cannot have an infinite regress. We exist, there must be a real reality, and since this is the only one we know about, we can say, according to current evidence, this is the only one that's most plausibly true.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Once again, you only assume that you exist. There is nothing in your worldview that provides foundation for universal truth, and therefor you can say only that you "might" exist. You go from (you pretend to go from) a completely nuetral and unbiased starting point, then establish "truths" and "proofs" from there. How do you justify something as true without first having an objective standard by which to measure?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I already demonstrated that I exist. Also, absolute truth exists, most atheists (at least I) do not reject absolute truth. So, as you can see, all the information in your posts has to be rejected, because it is all invalid. I demonstrated that I exist, I demonstrated that this reality is most plausibly reality, I demonstrated that sense perception is the logically necessary foundation of knowledge for everyone, even you. And you haven't refuted any of that, I havent made assumptions
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix So, I didn't assume that it was reality. I started out acknowledging that it might be reality, it might not be reality, and then I went from there with what evidence I have, and that evidence points to this BEING reality. It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on the evidence so far. It is a justified belief, which is the only kind anyone should have. To have a more rational view, please purge the unjustified beliefs from your world view today...
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 What unjustified beliefs? In your worldview, nothing is justified because there is no absolute truth by which to measure your claims. You can make observations about the physical world, but you can give no account of why those observations are true, nor whether thay can be assumed to be true at any given moment. This "might" be reality, which means that YOU "might" be reality, which means that any claim you make towards the truth about existence only "might" be true.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix WRONG. You claimed that there is no absolute truth according to my worldview, and that in plain wrong. I believe absolute truth exists. And I already gave accounts of why sense experience leads to knowledge. I can say certain things are most plausibly true based on the current evidence. And I don't "assume" things to be true, you haven't pointed out a single thing I have assumed. I exist. The information I perceive is most plausibly reality.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I'd also like to go one step further and say that YOU cannot account for absolute truth in your world view, the laws of logic, or any of that stuff, because appealing to "magic" is NEVER accounting for something, it is a cop out of trying to find a real answer. Thats why your argument is an elaborate "God of the gaps" argument. Even if someone else couldn't explain these things, that doesn't mean you get to insert god into that gap of knowledge. So your view fails on that level too.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix My statement still stands that "sense experience is a logically necessary foundation for gaining knowledge.", as in the past two posts, you have tried to say I must "assume" things (I don't, I conclude things), and that I must accept immaterial things by faith (I don't, the things outside our brain are still material.) So I reject both of your last two "points", they do not seem to be valid.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 You contradict yourself here. You claim that you don't assume things, but then you go ahead and assume that the conclusions you make are true. By what standard are your conclusions true? Are they solely up to you to decide? Is it that you decide for yourself what is true and then verify it by the things you experience? If truth exists, objective truth, then it must be true regardless of personal experience. Therefor, "sense experience...." is not the logical foundation for knowledge
bengphoenix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
redsaint182 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I keep getting an error when I try to reply...
redsaint182 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bengphoenix By evaluating and rejecting a claim, you are using your brain, which relies on original sense experience to function. You prove my point again by using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge claims. And isn't knowing truth a means of survival? Yes, it is. These organs help us survive by providing us with information about the world around us. Again, you have used sense experience to attempt to reject that claim. Again, you are using sense experience as your foundation.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix You prove my point again. By using your brain to evaluate and reject a proposition, you are using your mental faculties, which rely on some original sense input to function properly. By attempting to reject my statement about sense experience, you are in fact relying on sense experience to make your rejection, which invalidates your rejection and proves my point further. You are using sense experience as your foundation for knowledge.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Wrong. I reject your claim because of my worldview, because of my belief, not because I've reasoned from my own sensory data. You fail to see how your personal experience of the universe is incapable of establishing any objective truth, and that truth, as an absolute, is an abstract concept not found in the material world. You must rely on something other than your senses when appealing to truth or laws of logic, because these concepts are not physically measurable.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Your world view is your evaluation of reality, and what you believe about it. It is decided upon and formed using your brain, which relies upon sensory input. Concepts, abstract as they are, are material--they are thoughts, which are electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain, which are stored in memory, which is also a mental faculty by electrical impulses in the brain.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 My worldview is formed by my belief in the authority of Scripture. My thoughts are my own responsibility, I am not bound to think only those things which are determined by blind natural forces. I see the world around me, and the value of using my sense organs, but I also believe that there is a greater reality beyond what human organs can perceive. My views are validated by the Spirit of God who testifies to the reality of the Word.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix "My worldview is formed...." -- and how do you know that Scripture even exists? *sense experience* You appeal to sense experience every time lol. Your worldview is based on sense experience, and your blind acceptance of one book you happened to come across in that wealth of information your senses have delivered to you. Your thoughts *ARE* natural. Yes, you *believe* there is a greater reality, but you don't have evidence to support that. It's just a belief without justification.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Also, you *believe* your views are validated by the holy spirit, but they probably aren't. Belief in supernatural experience is a common natural phenomenon, we see it in many cultures and religions, all claiming to have some kind of supernatural experience. They cannot all be right, so we know many are wrong. SO we know of this natural phenomenon of convincing themselves of supernatural experience when there really isn't any. Yours is also most plausibly this natural phenomenon.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 You have every right to believe that. Everyone would believe this way if not for the work of God within believers. No one can convince an unregenerate heart to repent and believe the gospel, only the power of God can do this. Probability is irrelevent when dealing with God, for God is not bound by the restrictions we face. He does whatsoever He pleases, and we aren't in any position to question it (we ought not.)
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I also never claimed that my senses could provide my with all the answers. I only said that it is a logically necessary foundation for knowledge. Yes my knowledge is limited, yes my senses imperfect. *But thats not the issue here* The issue here is that its all we have to go on. Its a logically necessary foundation. You are just as limited as I am in that sense. Also, just because we are limited doesn't mean that we cannot know things. Just means we aren't omniscient.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Wrong. The necessary foundation for knowledge is "the fear of the Lord," (Pro. 1:7). We use our senses to make observations about the natural world, but all people employ their senses with presuppositions about reality. It is only because you know, deep down, that God is true that you are able to function in this world. The fact that you deny Him only reinforces the message of the Bible, which claims that you are blinded from this truth by the power of Satan.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Your proving my point even more. By trying to quote any Bible verse, you are using sense experience to read that verse. Your foundation is sense experience, and you just happen to believe this book written thousands of years ago, even when it doesn't add up with reality. No, I don't believe in god deep down, and no, I am not under the influence of devils, leprechauns, pixies, of fairies. You appealed to sense experience yet again as your foundation for knowledge.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Yes, you do know God, deep down. He is inescapable because He is the source of all things, including your body and soul. You are unable to believe this because you are blinded by the passions of your mortal body. The devil convinces you that this world is all you need. Its been this way since the garden of Eden, but, then again, you believe this to be only a fairy tale. My faith is based on the working of the Spirit of God. My senses cannot detect God, only through faith.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix No, wrong. In the same way that you don't believe in Leprechauns, even deep down, I also do not believe in god(s), even deep down. You have asserted that a god is the source of all things, but have not demonstrated it, so I reject your proposition. I also reject your propositions about devils and magical gardens for the same reason.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 The demonstration is in all things created, aswell as in the consciousness of men. The fact that you are unable to believe is a testimony to God's sovereign elective purposes. But I'll pray for you.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix The demonstration is not in all things or consciousness. You cannot just point at something and say "See, God MUST have done it" that is a fallacy. How do you know these things were not FORMED naturally, instead of created? Because all the evidence suggests that things do NOT have supernatural origins. We know about how men are formed, and it has nothing to do with magic supernatural stuff.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Ok, where did material substances come from? Where did they originate? For a person of faith, the evidence certainly does testify to the truth of God, who is powerful enough to change the heart (and mind) of even the most hardened skeptic. I need to get going, and I hope to continue later
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix "Where did material substances come from?" That is an excellent question, but irrelevant to our discussion, as this is a question that *we must use our senses to discover the answer to.*
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 If the origin of the universe is not knowable through empirical data, then I'd say its a very relevent question. You either accept some things on faith, or you claim that it cannot be known (and therefor absolute truth cannot be known.)
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I never said the origins of the universe is not knowable through empirical data. I just said its irrelevant to our discussion, and it is. And admitting that you don't know the answer to something doesn't mean that absolute truth cannot be known, it just means you don't know that one thing.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Also, my rejection of your claims is testimony to and based solely on your failure to provide sufficient evidence for your claims. My rejection of leprechauns is based on the same thing, and it isn't a testimony to leprechauns power, and my rejection of Allah/Krishna/Brahman and the sort are based on the same thing, and it isn't a testimony to their "sovereignty" either.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 God is an immaterial being. You have displayed an utter refusal to accept anything that does not leave empirical evidence of itself. This is because, as I stated already, you presuppose that God is not true and then build your worldview based on that. It is an inescapable truth that you are either for God, or against Him. If you want to adhere to a purely materialistic view, then you must deny that truth absolute truth can be known and that all that is said is purely subjective
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I also do not presuppose that god is not true. I don't presuppose anything about the existence of god. I listen to the claim, and if there is evidence for it, I accept it, if there isn't sufficient evidence, then i don't accept it. Its not a presupposition, its a conclusion based on the evidence or lack thereof.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Also, faith is not a good tool for gaining knowledge. Faith is, by definition, a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. If I tell you "Leprechauns exist" and don't prove it, you must accept it if your standard is faith. i can also tell you that they don't exist, which you also must accept. This leads you to contradictory and incorrect views. Thus, faith is not a good tool for determining truth, as demonstrated here. I reject it as a valid justification for belief.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Faith is the only tool for attaining knowledge of God. It's impossible to know God apart form faith. Your comparison of God to a leprechaun is a fallacious one, for no one is claiming God to be a material being. Faith is the only tool for determining truth, because no one is capable of knowing it on their own. The truth lies in God, along with love, and forgiveness, and eternal life.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Leprechaun, by the definition I was using, is an invisible immaterial being that is allergic to tacos and cannot tie its shoes. It isn't a material being. The connection the two beings have is this: Neither has been demonstrated to exist. My comparison still stands.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix And since my comparison still stands, my reason for calling faith a useless tool for attaining knowledge still stands as well. If you really were consistent with accepting things on faith, you would believe in Zeus and Krishna and Ra as well. Faith is a useless tool for knowledge, and I have demonstrated that, and my demonstration still stands, as you have not successfully rebutted it.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 You should know this about Christians. Its not as though we read the Bible and compare it to othr works of men to verify it. We read the Bible and submit to it's truth because we believe it is the very Word of God. If you think that modern science disproves the truth of the Bible, you're quite mistaken, and if you think the Bible is not an accurate depiction of man's lost condition and need for salvation, you're wrong again. But nothing I can say will convince you, only God can.
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix You could convince me by giving sufficient evidence, thus providing sufficient justification for acceptance of the claim. Claims should only be accepted as true when they are demonstrated to be true. Also, there are many cases, scientific and historical, which discredit the authenticity of the Bible.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@bengphoenix I would also like to say that I know quite a bit about Christians, seeing as I used to be one for over 10 years, and that most of my family are Christians as well. :)
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 ...identical.) So if you've developed logic in your brain, and I've developed logic in my brain, and everyone else in the world has developed logic in their brains, who's logic is the right one? If that is the case, then there can be no universal Laws of Logic, because all logic is subject to each individual. I may just as well say that A=non A because thats what my brain is telling me. But that's not what really happens. What really happens is that you "assume," or presuppose logic
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Also, I don't presuppose that the world we live in is reality either. I receive information from my senses, and these senses are directly correlated to organs (such as eyes, nerves, ears, etc.) and these organs will not generate input on their own. So whatever they are receiving input from, we can call it "System A" if you don't like the word reality, is the system or body of information I am interested in learning about, because it is the only one we are aware of.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 So this reality "that we are aware of" may or may not be reality at all? That doesn't sound like a good starting point for attaining knowledge. Plus, how can we trust the senses of our organs if those organs are only possible realities? And where is the input coming from if not from the organs you have already mentioned?
bengphoenix 1 year ago
@bengphoenix Input is being sent to our brains through those organs. And those organs cannot create information on their own, rather they can only relay information/input. Whatever body of information that input is coming from, I define as "System A", and say that as far as i know, this is reality, and this is what I want to learn about. We have no knowledge of any "System" beyond this one.
redsaint182 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How can you account for laws of logic? Laws of logic are statements which are descriptive of reality, they are either true or not true. If they accurately reflect reality, then they are true. We use observation to test if they accurately reflect reality. Are the laws of logic material? They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain. They attempt to describe reality, they are either true or not true. And observation dictates that they are true.
redsaint182 1 year ago
How can you account for laws of logic? Laws of logic are statements which are descriptive of reality, they are either true or not true. If they accurately reflect reality, then they are true. We use observation to test if they accurately reflect reality. Are the laws of logic material? They are statements, which come from thoughts, which are electrical impulses within the brain. They attempt to describe reality, they are either true or not true. And observation dictates that they are true.
redsaint182 1 year ago
aww poor mouse, it represents Stein
SabbathFreak25 2 years ago
What's with the mouse?
FalseTrinityDoctrine 2 years ago
come on. why'd u have to put a rat dying. now im grossed out...but other than the gruesomeness the audio part was good
thejesusfreak919 2 years ago