December 9, 2008

The Great Debate, Christianity vs. Atheism


For some of you that enjoy the country life (dial up), you can click this link to download the mp3.

Since "Rock Star" Sye TenBruggencate started me into presuppositionalism and Sye admitted this debate is what got him into presuppositional apologetics, I figure it would be fitting to include this as my 100th post!

UPDATE: Since the post editor counted drafts as a post I was under the assumption that this was my 100th post but since I had a couple of drafts working I forgot to discount those. I was at around 95th post at this time but am past 100 by now so it was merely a premature celebration. Moving on.

Enjoy, with fear. (Job 4:14, Psalm 2:11, Psalm 55:5, 1 Corinthians 2:3, 2 Corinthians 7:15, Ephesians 6:5)

All the glory to God! Please help us Lord. Save these souls!

tinyurl.com/cny8q4

93 comments:

  1. Ha @ rock star! :-D

    Stop that! :-D

    Blessing brother!

    (Awesome debate eh?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, and congrats on 100!!!

    (Could you drop me an e-mail when you get a chance? I don't have your e-mail address)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan,

    Congratulations on your 100th post - I'll raise a pint to 100 more!

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  4. Congrats Dan, and happy bday to your son.

    Bahnsen cleans Stein's clock in this debate, as does his disciple Sye today.

    All glory to the Father and His Holy One!!

    I'm reading more on the scriptural supports for the presup argument and yup! it's all there.

    I like this essay by by Massimo Lorenzini
    http://www.frontlinemin.org/apolpresupp.asp

    I think it comes naturally for me since I believe I was actually using some of this reasoning without knowing it before I met Sye.
    I give thanks to Yah! for you both.

    Baruch Hashem!
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was looking for an email address but your profile link is not working, at least as of now.

    My name is Mariano and I wanted to see if you would cross link with me.

    Please send me an email at rddbug@gmail.com and feel free to delete this comment.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm going to try to listen to all 14 parts (ug) of this Dan, and will comment when I'm finished.

    Incidentally, why would you pray to God that he save us (re. the unwashed non-believers)? Isn't it completely up to God as to whether we accept him or not?

    What could a plea from you hope to change? I ask this sincerely...

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Wem

    1Ti 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,

    Enjoy the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Happy Hundred Dan!

    I've been sick for a few days, which is why I dropped out of the presupp thread (it's kind of hard to think when your body is trying to kill a virus by any means necessary, completely regardless of collateral damage).

    I'm trying to catch up with the reading and the thinking and the thinking about the reading, but it may take me a while: I'm still not 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Whateverman said: ”What could a plea from you hope to change? I ask this sincerely...”

    I know that you asked Dan, but allow me to add my 2 cents.

    Let’s say that your wife knows that you love her, what good would it do for you to tell her?

    Communicating these things is how good relationships work. You could go for the rest of your life, and not tell your wife that you love her, but that would make for a crappy relationship.

    God knows us better than we know ourselves, but Christianity is also relational, and we ought to communicate our needs and desires to our Lord and Father as he directs us – (as Dani’ El pointed out), to bolster our relationship with Him. Surely God could affect His will apart from our prayers but that would make for a crappy relationship. I’m not sure how exactly our prayer works in the affecting of God’s will, but I like the sound of this quote from Martin Luther: ”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Sye , I was wondering why presuppositionalism was mostly popular in the Reformed Church circles. is it just because it had its origin there? or do you think it reflects a more reformed understanding of god?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan,
    "Since "Rock Star" Sye TenBruggencate started me into presuppositionalism....."

    I am not surprised that you are buying into this garbage. You seem to gravitate toward the irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sye,
    So now we're supposed to take relationship advice from a 40 year old virgin?

    When Sally Struthers comes out with the next thing in diet plans you can be sure I'll be all over that....

    ReplyDelete
  13. I really see Presuppositionalism as an philosophy of desperation held by those who have given up trying to prove that god exists by using the normal evidence one would use to prove anything else exists (because there is no such evidence). They then try to equate their "presupposing" that the existence of god is right with everybody else "presupposing" that their senses (at least roughly) give an accurate description of reality and that logic can be used to correctly explain existence.

    The difference is that there is no reason to the existence of god is the right answer. Why presuppose such a thing? The natural world does not obviously appear to be the creation of a god. However, with my senses there is reason to believe they are accurate. If I see a hot burner on my stove and move my hand onto it and it burns my hand causing me to feel pain, I have reason to believe that the stove is hot and logically I know that I should not put my hand on it again. There a million examples of this one could come up with.

    Now, please someone tell me what reason you have for presupposing the view that god exists is correct. Next, I would appreciate some Presuppositionalist telling me how took the step from presupposing that god exists to the Christian God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sye said but I like the sound of this quote from Martin Luther: ”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.”

    Brilliant! That just made the list.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello MFT!

    Good work over at the Raytractors! You have a keen ability for cutting through their obfuscations.

    As far as presuppositionalism and the Reformed Church goes, I would say that if reflects a more reformed understanding of God. For example, with Arminianism, God is not foundational in every aspect of human existence, whereas with Calvinism He is. With Arminianism, it is man who ultimately chooses God, whereas with Calvinism, it is God who chooses us. That translates nicely into the differences with evidentialism and presuppositionalism. With evidentialism, man is said to be able to reason autonomously to God, whereas with presuppositionalism, God is the necessary foundation of reason.

    If you’d like to flesh this out a little more, let me know, I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. MFT,
    I wanted to take the time to apologize for judging you wrongly as being a poe.

    I noticed you changed your parody site to make it more plain.
    I still don't think such a parody is befitting a saint, but that is not a foundational issue IMO.

    I've also seen from reading your comments and getting to know you better that you love the Lord and are willing to get in the middle of the battle for the lost.

    Again, I beg your forgiveness brother.

    Dani' El

    Sye,
    Did you get my email?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sye: "With Arminianism, it is man who ultimately chooses God, whereas with Calvinism, it is God who chooses us. "

    After Calvinism then we can delve deeper and discuss infralapsarianism vs. supralapsarianism. Mmmm Good eats!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bart said: ”I really see Presuppositionalism as an philosophy of desperation held by those who have given up trying to prove that god exists by using the normal evidence one would use to prove anything else exists (because there is no such evidence).”

    1. The very concept of ‘evidence’ presupposes God, so arguing over evidence is an exercise in futility.
    2. Your claim that ‘there is no such evidence’ is a claim to universal knowledge, a very attribute of the God you apparently deny exists.

    ” They then try to equate their "presupposing" that the existence of god is right with everybody else "presupposing" that their senses (at least roughly) give an accurate description of reality”

    What is your basis for presupposing that ‘your senses (at least roughly) give you an accurate description of reality?’

    ”The difference is that there is no reason to the existence of god is the right answer.”

    Sure there is, as the existence of God is the necessary precondition of ‘reason’ itself. How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?

    ”Why presuppose such a thing? The natural world does not obviously appear to be the creation of a god.”

    That is question begging. To a Christian, everything in the natural world screams ‘God,’ you just deny this based on your presupposition that He does not exist. Problem is, your presuppositon cannot account for reason, logic, science, or morality to name but a few.

    ” However, with my senses there is reason to believe they are accurate. If I see a hot burner on my stove and move my hand onto it and it burns my hand causing me to feel pain, I have reason to believe that the stove is hot and logically I know that I should not put my hand on it again.”

    So your senses and reasoning tell you that your senses and reasoning are valid??? You don’t see a problem there?

    ”There a million examples of this one could come up with.”

    How about just one example that tells you that your senses are valid, which does not beg the question?

    ”Now, please someone tell me what reason you have for presupposing the view that god exists is correct.”

    Cause without that presuppositon, reason itself cannot be made sense of.

    ”Next, I would appreciate some Presuppositionalist telling me how took the step from presupposing that god exists to the Christian God exists.”

    Simple, there is only one God, and that is the God of Christianity. If you care to posit another that you believe in, I will be happy to offer a refutation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dani' El said: Sye,
    Did you get my email?


    Yes! Sorry, for not responding yet, I have been neglecting my brothers in responding to my non-brothers.

    I've got a little catching up to do, but I'll try to respond this evening.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sye,
    No rush.

    I'd much prefer you continued using your time with the lost.
    I have my salvation.

    And I'm learning a lot watching you use your sword and shield so deftly.
    Brilliant!

    All glory to the Father and His Holy One!!

    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1. The very concept of ‘evidence’ presupposes God, so arguing over evidence is an exercise in futility.

    See? You nailed it, Bart. Presupps aren't interested in conversation or truth - they only want to prove to themselves that their God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I demand you acknowledge that my God exists before I'll talk about whether gods exist or not.

    It's people like Sye that completely convinced me that the Christian worldview was completely bankrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  23.      The concept of evidence does not presuppose a god. It only requires some regularity in observations. We have such a regularity in observations whether there is any god or not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Christ Follower (no longer):

         The existence of people like Sye is not, itself, a mark against christianity. Such dishonesty can be found in support of just about any position. The question is whether his dishonesty is shunned or embraced.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1. The very concept of ‘evidence’ presupposes God, so arguing over evidence is an exercise in futility.
    2. Your claim that ‘there is no such evidence’ is a claim to universal knowledge, a very attribute of the God you apparently deny exists.


    Are you just going assert this or are you going to give reasons why you think this?

    2. Your claim that ‘there is no such evidence’ is a claim to universal knowledge, a very attribute of the God you apparently deny exists.

    It sure does not. It means that I am not aware of any such evidence. Would you say the Allah of the Koran does not exist? If so, under your logic, you are claiming universal knowledge. Since you obviously do not have universal knowledge, then you have admitted that you do not know whether the Christian God, Allah, Sheva or any or none of the various postulated deities exist.

    What is your basis for presupposing that ‘your senses (at least roughly) give you an accurate description of reality?

    I see you are trying to raise an epistemological problem here. I am not going to go down this road unless you are genuinely of the belief that what we sense is not a rough indicator of reality - I did that enough in college philosophy classes.

    I admit that my senses and your senses are fallible. I don't know how this gets us anywhere in the debate over whether God exists. The only way to experience the universe is through our senses, so it is the best thing we have. Unless you are arguing that the average person's senses do not describe reality, then I am not going to address hypothetical problems. If you are going to argue that your senses could not give you an accurate view of reality, then you are going to have a hard time explaining why you suppose the Christian God exists. In fact, you would be left in the dark as to whether anything exists including your Christian God.

    Sure there is, as the existence of God is the necessary precondition of ‘reason’ itself.

    Why is it a necessary precondition or is this just another assertion?

    How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?

    I have already admitted that I am fallible. My reasoning is based on evidence, history, the observable universe and repeatable results.

    For example, if I see somebody starting to run out in front of a bus I will stop them because they will be hurt. This is not based on "faith." This is based on the experiences relayed by other people who have seen people hit by buses or maybe have been hit by a bus themselves. I have seen people hit by other things (not a bus) and be hurt. I know that people getting hit by large things going fast are most likely going to get very hurt.

    My reasoning is what comports with my senses and my experience. It is always open to revision based on new information. How again exactly does this get you to your desired conclusion (the existence of the Christian God)?

    That is question begging. To a Christian, everything in the natural world screams ‘God,’ you just deny this based on your presupposition that He does not exist. Problem is, your presuppositon cannot account for reason, logic, science, or morality to name but a few.

    I don't deny that God could potentially exist. Just like unicorns could potentially exist. I just have been given no reason to believe god, let along the Christian God, exists. Since you have misunderstood my position, maybe you should take another shot.


    So your senses and reasoning tell you that your senses and reasoning are valid??? You don’t see a problem there?


    How about just one example that tells you that your senses are valid, which does not beg the question?

    Again, this is just the only way us humans have to experience the world around us. I know, we are such imperfect creatures. Again, I don't see why this logical problem is any bigger of a problem for me than for you.



    Me: ”Now, please someone tell me what reason you have for presupposing the view that god exists is correct.”

    Sye: Cause without that presuppositon, reason itself cannot be made sense of.


    Care to explain why?

    Simple, there is only one God, and that is the God of Christianity. If you care to posit another that you believe in, I will be happy to offer a refutation.

    I don't believe in Gods, but I see no more reason to believe in the existence of the God that you are trying to demonstrate vs. the God of the Koran.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Pvblivs said: ”The concept of evidence does not presuppose a god. It only requires some regularity in observations. We have such a regularity in observations whether there is any god or not.”

    But, how do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid? Without knowing that, you don't have evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  27. But, how do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid?

    Did you receive your revelation without using your senses?

    ReplyDelete
  28.      In asking his question, Sye must assume that my senses are valid, in order that I may correctly identify the question he asks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bart said: ”Are you just going assert this or are you going to give reasons why you think this?”

    Well, I have many times, but I’ll be glad to repeat it for you. Evidence requires valid senses and reasoning, which cannot be justified outside of God. (Just watch how Pvblivs answers the question above, and you may get the picture).

    I said: “ Your claim that ‘there is no such evidence’ is a claim to universal knowledge, a very attribute of the God you apparently deny exists.”

    You answered: ”It sure does not. It means that I am not aware of any such evidence. “

    Um, no. Then you say “I am not aware of any such evidence,” and NOT, “there is no such evidence.” Big difference.

    ”Would you say the Allah of the Koran does not exist? If so, under your logic, you are claiming universal knowledge. Since you obviously do not have universal knowledge, then you have admitted that you do not know whether the Christian God, Allah, Sheva or any or none of the various postulated deities exist.”

    Unless of course I have revelation from a being (God) who DOES have universal knowledge - which is the Christian claim.

    I asked: “What is your basis for presupposing that ‘your senses (at least roughly) give you an accurate description of reality?”

    You answered: ”I see you are trying to raise an epistemological problem here. I am not going to go down this road unless you are genuinely of the belief that what we sense is not a rough indicator of reality - I did that enough in college philosophy classes.”

    Look, you said that you presuppose that your senses (at least roughly) give you an accurate description of reality. I am simply asking you on what basis you make this presupposition? If you don’t have an answer, just say so.

    ”Why is it a necessary precondition or is this just another assertion?”

    Reason presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God (and can, and are accounted for with Him).

    I asked: “How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?”

    You answered: ”I have already admitted that I am fallible. My reasoning is based on evidence, history, the observable universe and repeatable results.”

    Please answer the question. How do you know that your reasoning about anything (such as your fallibility, evidence, history, the observable universe, and repeatable results) is valid?

    ”For example, if I see somebody starting to run out in front of a bus I will stop them because they will be hurt. This is not based on "faith." This is based on the experiences relayed by other people who have seen people hit by buses or maybe have been hit by a bus themselves.”

    How do you know that the senses with which you observe are valid?
    How do you know that your reasoning about your observations are valid?
    How do you know that the senses with which you get information from other people is valid?
    How do you know that your reasoning with which you interpret the observation of others is valid?
    How do you know that past experiences are a valid indication of what WILL happen in the future?


    ”I have seen people hit by other things (not a bus) and be hurt. I know that people getting hit by large things going fast are most likely going to get very hurt. “

    Actually, even if I granted you the validity of your senses and reasoning (which I do not), all you could hope to tell me is what HAS happened, not what WILL, or what will even likely happen. What bearing does the past have on the future?

    ”My reasoning is what comports with my senses and my experience.”

    Well, lets see how you know that either are valid, before we go over this again.

    ” How again exactly does this get you to your desired conclusion (the existence of the Christian God)?”

    God is not the conclusion. God is the necessary startintg point. Without God, you cannot tell us how you know that your senses or reasoning are valid (or how you are able to know anything for that matter).

    ”I don't deny that God could potentially exist. Just like unicorns could potentially exist. I just have been given no reason to believe god, let along the Christian God, exists.”

    Your very ability to reason is reason enough to believe God exists, as you cannot make sense of it without Him.

    I asked: “How about just one example that tells you that your senses are valid, which does not beg the question?”

    You answered: ”Again, this is just the only way us humans have to experience the world around us. I know, we are such imperfect creatures. Again, I don't see why this logical problem is any bigger of a problem for me than for you.”

    Simple, you cannot account for the validity of your senses, I can. (They are a good gift from God).
    You aren’t telling me that your senses are the only way that one can attain knowledge though are you?

    I said: “Cause without that presuppositon, reason itself cannot be made sense of.”

    You answered: ”Care to explain why?”

    Well I did, but I will again. Reason presupposes the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be made sense of apart from God, (and can, and are made sense of with Him).

    ”I don't believe in Gods, but I see no more reason to believe in the existence of the God that you are trying to demonstrate vs. the God of the Koran.”

    Well, perhaps after you answer my questions, you will.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pvblivs said: "In asking his question, Sye must assume that my senses are valid, in order that I may correctly identify the question he asks."

    I do, as you were also made in the image of God, my question however, was: How do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chris Mackey said: "Did you receive your revelation without using your senses?"

    You aren't suggesting that an omnipotent, omniscient God could not reveal some things to us, via our senses, such that we can know them for certain are you?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Chris Mackey said: "Is your answer yes?"

    Some of it, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Chris, you may have noticed Sye demands answers for other people but is too shy to give many himself.

    Like in this exchange between him and I:

    Still wondering about moral absolutes:

    Sye says child molestation is absolutely wrong.
    "Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs." (from his website)

    He says lying is absolutely wrong.
    "Yes."

    He says lying even to stop a murder is still wrong: "Yes. Your problem is assuming that saving someone's earthly life is the ultimate good."

    I wonder if he thinks lying to stop child molestation is an absolute moral wrong?
    Or would he think my problem is thinking that stopping child molestation is right?


    Sye's response:
    I think that if you think that the simple act of lying would stop a molester from molesting a child, then you are quite naïve.

    Still though, lying is absolutely morally wrong. What word are you having trouble with?


    Notice he didn't answer the question? Did you notice how he managed to sneak little insulting question at the end?

    My more directed question is;
    Yes or No - Is it absolutely morally wrong to tell a lie to save a child for being molested?

    Don't avoid the question by asking another question. Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Chris Mackey:

         Sye will not the nature of the revelation (other than saying "in such a way that I can be certain") because it is entirely fictitious. There was no revelation. (Back when I made the mistake of thinking Sye was honest, I asked for specifics. He wouldn't give any.)

         "Actually, even if I granted you the validity of your senses and reasoning (which I do not)..." "I do, as you were also made in the image of God, my question however, was: How do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid?"
         Dishonesty on display, for all to see. Simply put, if he is going to accept our senses as valid (which he must if he is going to ask us questions) it is dishonest to ask "how do you know" they are valid. It is a mutually agreed upon premise.
         While Sye claims to use his god as his starting point, I use my senses and my reasoning. They are my "necessary starting point." Every time he calls on me to account for them, he may as well say "the biblical god is a complete sham."

    ReplyDelete
  35. What does your answer to Chris Mac mean?
    You used some of your senses?
    Some of the revelations?
    I know you don't actually what to answer questions because then it would be easier to examine your claims...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Gorth said: "My more directed question is;
    Yes or No - Is it absolutely morally wrong to tell a lie to save a child for being molested?"


    Yes. (Since apparenly you can't figure out what "It is absolutely morally wrong to lie" means)

    Now, is it abollutely morally wrong to molest a child according to your worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You can't see the conflict?
    Would you honestly not lie to save a child from being molested?
    Please be honest with your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sye wrote:
    But, how do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid?
    Quasar replied:
    They (the reality which our senses observe, and the descriptions of the nature of reality which we use to reason) have followed consistent patterns in all known situations in the past.
    Sye replied:
    But the past doesn't dictate the future: how are you certain that they will continue to do so?
    Quasar responded
    We don't know for certain, but it is a fair assumption and anything contradictory would fly in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    Sye answered:
    So, according to your worldview, the nature of reality could possibly change at any moment and your senses and reasoning would not be valid.
    Quasar wrote:
    Yes, but such an event is so extremely improbable that it must be discarded as completely absurd by anyone with a working sanit- ksshhshshshhsh.
    Sye wrote:
    kssshshhhhh... ????

    I pulled this discourse from a parallel universe where Alternate Quasar was threatening Alternate Sye with a stapler, three buckets of fat-free mayonnaise and a full recording of every Gilligans Island episode in existance if Sye repeated a previously asked question. The transmission cut out, so I was unable to see how it continued, which is a shame because I was really curious about what Qu was going to do with the mayonnaise. Sye, if you'd like to continue the debate, or let me know how you would answered any of Alternate Qu's questions in your own alternates stead, please feel free.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Pvblivs said: ”Sye will not the nature of the revelation (other than saying "in such a way that I can be certain")

    God reveals things to us in Scripture and in nature, such that we can know them for certain. I don’t know how God does it, but you would be forced to admit (if you were intellectually honest) that He could.

    Now with all your grandstanding about me not answering questions, I have yet to see your answer to my question: “How do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid?

    ”Dishonesty on display, for all to see. Simply put, if he is going to accept our senses as valid (which he must if he is going to ask us questions) it is dishonest to ask "how do you know" they are valid. It is a mutually agreed upon premise.”

    That we agree that our senses our mostly trustworthy, does not account for our trusting them. We do not agree on the justification for the trustworthiness of our senses, and I would like to debate that point. I have told you on what basis I trust the validity of my senses, you have yet to tell me on what basis you trust the validity of yours. (But don’t worry, I don’t expect you to).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gorth said: "You can't see the conflict?
    Would you honestly not lie to save a child from being molested?
    Please be honest with your answer."


    Beats me. I know what it right, but I often do what is not right.

    Now Gorth, again, is molesting children for fun absollutely wrong according to your worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ Quasar,

    Well, lets start here:


    Sye wrote:
    But, how do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid?
    Quasar replied:
    They (the reality which our senses observe, and the descriptions of the nature of reality which we use to reason) have followed consistent patterns in all known situations in the past.

    Really Quasar, I don’t know why I expected better from you, but I did.

    How do you know that your memory about the past is valid, how do you know that the senses with which you observed these patterns was valid, and how do you know that the reasoning with which you even determined that they were patterns was valid? Besides, what do past observations and reasoning have to do with knowing that your senses and reasoning are valid now?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Now Gorth, again, is molesting children for fun absollutely wrong according to your worldview.

    I have a feeling you are trying to ask a question. Questions end with a question mark. Looks like this- ?

    "For fun"? Why did you add "for fun"? (Like you said once) I'm not ever inviting you to a BBQ.

    In my worldview, molesting children is wrong. Even if you think it's fun.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Beats me.
    Maybe your revelation will provide the answer. But I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gorth said: "For fun"? Why did you add "for fun"?

    Um, perhaps because people like you come up with ridiculous scenarios (scroll up) like: "Would it be right to molest a child to stop another child from being molested.?"

    The 'for fun' kinda weeds that out.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Well, I have many times, but I’ll be glad to repeat it for you. Evidence requires valid senses and reasoning, which cannot be justified outside of God. (Just watch how Pvblivs answers the question above, and you may get the picture).

    See, this is why the epistemological problem is no bigger for me, you or anybody else. We all have to admit that all of our senses are potentially flawed. I do. You do not. Maybe what we see isn't real, maybe we all live in a big computer simulation (like the Matrix) which would account for the laws of physics, logic, etc. All of these could theoretically be programmed by a super intelligent being. However, unless somebody can give me a reason for believing that is the case, I will stick with my "presupposition" that what we experience is reality. I am fine with that.

    Um, no. Then you say “I am not aware of any such evidence,” and NOT, “there is no such evidence.” Big difference.

    Why do you get so hung up on semantics? If somebody asked you whether you believed in Santa Clause would you say "no" or would you say "I am not aware of any such evidence and therefore, conditionally, I would have to say no"? If you want to come forward with evidence that the Christian God exists, go ahead. If not, I will continue to treat this postulated figure the same as unicorns and dragons.

    Unless of course I have revelation from a being (God) who DOES have universal knowledge - which is the Christian claim.

    If you are just trying to convince yourself that your subjective revelation is true, I am fine with that. But don't act like others should take your claim without evidence that you can share with the rest of the class.

    Look, you said that you presuppose that your senses (at least roughly) give you an accurate description of reality. I am simply asking you on what basis you make this presupposition? If you don’t have an answer, just say so.

    Answered above. I presuppose this fact because that is the way I experience the world. Like I said above, maybe it isn't reality, maybe we live in a computer simulation. But to postulate any number of scenarios where reality is not really "reality" is meaningless without some reason to believe any such scenario is true. If you are going to assert that our senses are worthless or potentially worthless is describing reality, then we are all left in the same position and God is no more or less likely than it was before. You are picking a battle which is just as difficult for you as it is for your adversary and gets us no closer to the question at hand. Obviously you believe that your senses are accurate and believe in evidence so we are both at the same starting point. So lets talk turkey and stop talking about hypothetical philosophical problems which are not relevant.

    Look, you said that you presuppose that your senses (at least roughly) give you an accurate description of reality. I am simply asking you on what basis you make this presupposition? If you don’t have an answer, just say so.

    I have admitted that I presuppose my senses (at least roughly) describe reality. I also said that the reason for the presupposition is that my senses are the only way in which I experience the world. It is a human limitation - we can't formulate a way to experience reality without sensing it because we wouldn't know what we found. That's my answer. I still don't see how this is any bigger problem for me than you or how this is even relevant to the question of whether the Christian God exists.

    Reason presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God (and can, and are accounted for with Him).

    Why cannot they be accounted for without God, and particularly the Christian God? Maybe this is the only way the universe could be, maybe there are multiple universes, maybe there is one universe but it could have been any number of different ways. I don't know, you don't know. Another human limitation (at least currently) is that we cannot observe what is outside our universe. I am fine with saying I do not know and do not need to make up an answer (God did it) just to have an answer without any reason to believe that answer is true. Like I said above, all of those things could have been programmed into a computer simulation by some non-deity super-intelligent being. However, I have no reason to believe that is true.

    Please answer the question. How do you know that your reasoning about anything (such as your fallibility, evidence, history, the observable universe, and repeatable results) is valid?

    Answer, twice above. Nobody can say for sure that their reasoning is valid. We can only go by what has happened in the past (hot stove example). We can only go by what we sense because if we cannot sense something, we have no basis upon which to say something is one way or not. Lets imagine a color that is not observable by humans. We will call it "thmad" (the word verification I see below while I am typing). Now neither you nor I can observe the color. Could either of us have any reason to say what the color looks like? I, like this debate, would say I don't know. You, like this debate, would assert that it is somewhat like a reddish blue even though you cannot demonstrate to me why this is so. Then you would assert that since I do not have an answer and you do (despite the fact that you cannot possibly demonstrate the truth of your answer to me) that you are eminently more reasonable than me. The problem is, in reality, neither of us can observe "thmad" and therefore neither of us has any reason to believe what it looks like or whether it even exists.

    How do you know that the senses with which you observe are valid?
    How do you know that your reasoning about your observations are valid?
    How do you know that the senses with which you get information from other people is valid?
    How do you know that your reasoning with which you interpret the observation of others is valid?
    How do you know that past experiences are a valid indication of what WILL happen in the future?
    ______________________

    Actually, even if I granted you the validity of your senses and reasoning (which I do not), all you could hope to tell me is what HAS happened, not what WILL, or what will even likely happen. What bearing does the past have on the future?


    First part was answered above. My observation is that past experiences typically do indicate what will happen in the future. Is this something I can say with a certainty? No and neither can you. I, again, do not see why this is any more of a problem for me than you and, again, do not see how it is relevant to the subject matter at hand.

    God is not the conclusion. God is the necessary startintg point. Without God, you cannot tell us how you know that your senses or reasoning are valid (or how you are able to know anything for that matter).
    ___________________

    Your very ability to reason is reason enough to believe God exists, as you cannot make sense of it without Him.
    ____________________

    Simple, you cannot account for the validity of your senses, I can. (They are a good gift from God).
    You aren’t telling me that your senses are the only way that one can attain knowledge though are you?
    ___________________

    Well I did, but I will again. Reason presupposes the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be made sense of apart from God, (and can, and are made sense of with Him).


    How to come to this conclusion. How do you know whether God is real, whether we live in a computer simulation or any number of other "potential scenarios." Once again, this is a basic human limitation and you are no better off than I am. Our senses are the tools we have to go on in experiencing and describing reality and I admit that all of our senses may potentially not be accurate. This doesn't get us anywhere in the debate of whether the Christian God exists. You can assert all day that our senses are a gift from the Christian God, but cannot give me any reason to believe that is true.

    Well, perhaps after you answer my questions, you will.

    I have given my answers to your questions. Now please tell me on what basis you believe that the Christian God exists as opposed to Allah of the Koran (or that we live in a computer simulation).

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sye TenB:

    The overarching problem here is that in having any discourse or in trying to explore what is true or not, we all have to make certain presuppositions. One being that reality is as it appears. I have to do that and you have to do that. You criticize atheists because they cannot go to some higher level and justify relying on their senses, logic, etc. as accurately describing reality. You then assert that you are completely justified in relying on your senses because God tells you that they are accurate. But, you are left in the same philosophical quandary that every person is - you have no basis upon which to assume that what this supposed God is telling is reality.

    Logic, reason and our senses are an a priori which both of us are still using in this debate.

    You are relying on the accuracy of your senses and observations in discerning some alleged revelation, but your also must assume that your senses and observations are correct before you cannot even sense and observe your revelation. However, this revelation is what gives you assurance that your senses, observations and logic are correct. Therefore, not only are you also "presupposing" that your senses are accurate, but you are trying to justify it with circular logic.

    Like I said in my long post before this one, we are in the same boat in presupposing the accuracy of our senses and your epistemological game gets us no closer to answering the question of whether the Christian God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  47. [Um, perhaps because people like you come up with ridiculous scenarios (scroll up) ... The 'for fun' kinda weeds that out.]

    Looks like you know that two "moral absolutes" can be in conflict. And are adding "for fun" just takes out some of the more obvious conflicts. And lying to save someone is not a ridiculous scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Chris Mackey said: "Looks like you know that two "moral absolutes" can be in conflict. And are adding "for fun" just takes out some of the more obvious conflicts."

    Nope, just narrowing it down to avoid the absurd scenarios. Now Chris, is molesting children for fun, absolutely morally wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Gorth said: "In my worldview, molesting children is wrong."

    But, is it absolutely morally wrong? Would it be right if another worldview deemed it so? If not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bart said: ”See, this is why the epistemological problem is no bigger for me, you or anybody else. We all have to admit that all of our senses are potentially flawed.”

    How do you know this? Did you sense this?

    ”However, unless somebody can give me a reason for believing that is the case, I will stick with my "presupposition" that what we experience is reality. I am fine with that.”

    That’s the problem with you atheists, you live on blind faith.

    ”Why do you get so hung up on semantics? If somebody asked you whether you believed in Santa Clause would you say "no" or would you say "I am not aware of any such evidence and therefore, conditionally, I would have to say no"?”

    I would say “no.” The difference is, I have a worldview which accounts for universals, you do not.

    If you want to come forward with evidence that the Christian God exists, go ahead. If not, I will continue to treat this postulated figure the same as unicorns and dragons.”

    Again, your own ability to reason is evidence that God exists, whereas unicorns and dragons do not provide the necessary preconditions for reason.

    ”If you are just trying to convince yourself that your subjective revelation is true, I am fine with that. But don't act like others should take your claim without evidence that you can share with the rest of the class.”

    Again, the very concept of ‘evidence’ is proof that God exists. YOU cannot make sense of the concept without God.

    I asked, on what basis you make the presupposiion that your senses are (at least roughly) accurate?

    You answered: ” I presuppose this fact because that is the way I experience the world.”

    So, you presuppose that your eyesight is accurate, because you use your eyes to see??? Surely you see the problem with that???

    ”If you are going to assert that our senses are worthless or potentially worthless is describing reality, then we are all left in the same position and God is no more or less likely than it was before.”

    Nope, I believe that we can trust our senses, as they are a good gift from God, I simply want to know on what basis you trust your senses?

    ”Why cannot they be accounted for without God, and particularly the Christian God?”

    Why don’t we start with your explanation for the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, and we’ll go from there.

    ”Like I said above, all of those things could have been programmed into a computer simulation by some non-deity super-intelligent being. However, I have no reason to believe that is true.”

    Problem is, you have no reason to believe that it isn’t.

    I asked: “How do you know that your reasoning about anything (such as your fallibility, evidence, history, the observable universe, and repeatable results) is valid?”

    You answered: ”Answer, twice above. Nobody can say for sure that their reasoning is valid.”

    How do you know this, since you have admitted that you cannot know if your reasoning is valid??? How can you possibly know what anyone else can know???

    ”First part was answered above. My observation is that past experiences typically do indicate what will happen in the future.”

    1. You have admitted that you cannot know that your past observations were valid.
    2. How do you know that they will continue to do so?

    ” Is this something I can say with a certainty? No and neither can you.”

    Again, how can you know what anyone else can, or cannot know for certain?

    ”How to come to this conclusion.”

    Again, God is not my conclusion. He is the necessary starting point for reason itself.

    ”I have given my answers to your questions. Now please tell me on what basis you believe that the Christian God exists as opposed to Allah of the Koran (or that we live in a computer simulation).”

    Because the Christian God has revealed to us that He exists, (in our ability to reason, among other things) and that our nature, as He has revealed, is not that of a computer simulation.

    ”The overarching problem here is that in having any discourse or in trying to explore what is true or not, we all have to make certain presuppositions.”

    Exactly. Problem is, your presuppositions do not give us logic, science, mathematics, or morality, to name but a few.

    ”But, you are left in the same philosophical quandary that every person is - you have no basis upon which to assume that what this supposed God is telling is reality. “

    1. You cannot know this.
    2. Are you suggesting that God could not reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    ”Logic, reason and our senses are an a priori which both of us are still using in this debate. “

    Right, but I have a worldview which makes sense out of logic, reason, and the trustworthiness of our senses, whereas you do not.

    ”Therefore, not only are you also "presupposing" that your senses are accurate, but you are trying to justify it with circular logic.”

    All ultimate authority claims, are by their very nature circular (i.e. you reason that your reasoning is valid), the difference is, I can make sense of mine, whereas you cannot make sense of yours, and yours, is in fact, inconsistent with what atheism says about reality. You cannot even tell us why circular reason is not allowed according to your worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Guess my latent psychic ability kinda sucks. Oh well.

    Sye wrote:
    Really Quasar, I don’t know why I expected better from you, but I did.

    I'm... not... really entirely sure how to interpret this. Oh well, moving on.

    Sye wrote:
    How do you know that your memory about the past is valid, how do you know that the senses with which you observed these patterns was valid, and how do you know that the reasoning with which you even determined that they were patterns was valid? Besides, what do past observations and reasoning have to do with knowing that your senses and reasoning are valid now?

    OK, one question at a time:

    - Memory. I firmly believe this to be valid and true because it is consistent with all available evidence from the present. This applies both to raw observations and to reasoned conclusions from those observations. I do not "know" it is valid: it would merely be mentally deficient to doubt its validity without cause.

    - My Senses. I firmly believe these to be valid because if they were not, I would be forced to throw away every piece of data I had ever gathered in my life, and by extention everything I know and am. Their own consistency with themselves, each other, the evidence and the rules of logic, further verify them for me, but the primary reason for the conclusion of validity is that any other conclusion would mean that I was unable to operate.

    - Reasoning. Reasoning is the human process of taking observations and coming to valid conclusions about them. Invalid reasoning produces invalid conclusions, which do not match our observations of reality. I apply strict quality control to my own reasoning to prevent this as much as possible, by comparing it with as many different observations as possible, but I always keep an open mind. Unlike you, I am willing to accept the possibility of being wrong.

    As for the final sentence, at least I did manage to predict that much: We don't know for certain [that the nature of reality won't suddenly change in the future], but it is a fair assumption and anything contradictory would fly in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    Word Verification made me laugh: "Conpot".

    ReplyDelete
  52. Uh OH!
    Sye's got ya now Quasar!

    I'll just watch from the stands and learn.

    ReplyDelete
  53. [Nope, just narrowing it down to avoid the absurd scenarios.]
    The scenarios are not absurd.

    [Now Chris, is molesting children for fun, absolutely morally wrong?]
    Molesting children is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ Quasar:

    First let me thank you for at least trying to answer my questions instead of concocting elaborate smoke screens in order to dodge them. It is refreshing.

    Ok, you said: ”- Memory. I firmly believe this to be valid and true because it is consistent with all available evidence from the present.”

    How do you know THAT though?

    ” This applies both to raw observations and to reasoned conclusions from those observations. I do not "know" it is valid: it would merely be mentally deficient to doubt its validity without cause.”

    Here’s a cause to doubt it: You cannot know that the senses and reasoning you use to justify it are valid.

    ”- My Senses. I firmly believe these to be valid because if they were not, I would be forced to throw away every piece of data I had ever gathered in my life, and by extention everything I know and am. “

    EXACTLY. Now, why are you not “forced to throw away every piece of data you have ever gathered in your life, and by extention everything you know that you are?”

    ”Their own consistency with themselves, each other, the evidence and the rules of logic, further verify them for me”

    Well, accounting for the evidence, rules of logic, and reasoning with which you determine consistency aside (for now), how do you know that they are not consistently invalid as opposed to valid?

    ” but the primary reason for the conclusion of validity is that any other conclusion would mean that I was unable to operate.”

    So, you are basically saying ‘I know that my senses are valid, because I am able to operate,’ and ‘I am able to operate because I know that my senses are valid?’ Do you not see the problem there? It’s question begging. How do you know that the senses which allow you to operate are valid? How do you know you are ‘operating’ for that matter?

    ”- Reasoning. Reasoning is the human process of taking observations and coming to valid conclusions about them. Invalid reasoning produces invalid conclusions, which do not match our observations of reality. I apply strict quality control to my own reasoning to prevent this as much as possible, by comparing it with as many different observations as possible, but I always keep an open mind. “

    Quasar, do you really not see the problem with using you reasoning to determine that your reasoning is valid? Besides, how would you know if your reasoning was invalid? Would you not have to presuppose valid reasoning in order to come to the conclusion that your reasoning was invalid?

    ”Unlike you, I am willing to accept the possibility of being wrong.”

    I am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong about many things, but not about those things which God has revealed to us such that we can know them for certain. (i.e. that He exists, and that His Word is true). Now if you claim that you could be wrong about everything, perhaps you can tell us how anyone can know something which could be false?

    ”We don't know for certain [that the nature of reality won't suddenly change in the future], but it is a fair assumption”

    What is the basis for that assumption?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Chris Mackey said: "Molesting children is wrong."

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  56. [Chris Mackey said: "Molesting children is wrong."

    Why?]

    Oddly, I was just about to ask you the same question. I know molesting children is wrong but how do you?

    Is there a Bible verse about not touching people under 18 years old?

    Is there a list in the Bible of things that are absolutely morally wrong. Are some acts wrong but not absolutely morally wrong?

    These are genuine questions.

    I don't even know how you define "children". Are young animals children? Are germs?

    Honestly, these are genuine questions because I have no idea how you'll answer.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Sorry, I forgot to add a response.
    It's wrong to exploit or hurt the vulnerable.

    Are your "moral absolutes" as bad as each other? Is lying as bad as genocide? What else do you define as moral absolutes?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Bart: ”See, this is why the epistemological problem is no bigger for me, you or anybody else. We all have to admit that all of our senses are potentially flawed.”

    Sye: How do you know this? Did you sense this?


    No it is logical reasoning. Logic comes from the evidence gathered by the senses which, as I have admitted, I assume a priori accurately depict reality. So do you.

    Bart: ”However, unless somebody can give me a reason for believing that is the case, I will stick with my "presupposition" that what we experience is reality. I am fine with that.”

    Sye: That’s the problem with you atheists, you live on blind faith.


    It is not blind faith. I experience my senses and, in fact, they are the only tools that any of us have to make any sense of reality. I do not experience any deity and therefore I have no reason to think one exists. If I did think one exists despite not experiencing it with my senses, that would be blind faith.

    Bart - ”Why do you get so hung up on semantics? If somebody asked you whether you believed in Santa Clause would you say "no" or would you say "I am not aware of any such evidence and therefore, conditionally, I would have to say no"?”

    Sye - "I would say “no.” The difference is, I have a worldview which accounts for universals, you do not."


    I am not trying to describe any universal truth. I am trying to explain what can be proven which is the only way a person can really make sense of reality - i.e. if you have no evidence from the existence of something, there is no reason to think it exists. Nobody could ever say with absolute certainty that Santa Clause does not exist because no person can have universal knowledge. However, there is no reason to believe Santa Clause exists as anything more than a fairy tale, kind of like your deity.

    Bart: "If you want to come forward with evidence that the Christian God exists, go ahead. If not, I will continue to treat this postulated figure the same as unicorns and dragons.”

    Sye - Again, your own ability to reason is evidence that God exists, whereas unicorns and dragons do not provide the necessary preconditions for reason.


    You still have not given any reason that God is a necessary precondition for reason. You just assert that its your worldview which is also not a convincing explanation.

    Bart - ”If you are just trying to convince yourself that your subjective revelation is true, I am fine with that. But don't act like others should take your claim without evidence that you can share with the rest of the class.”

    Sye - "Again, the very concept of ‘evidence’ is proof that God exists. YOU cannot make sense of the concept without God."


    You cannot either. You have just plopped some imaginary creature in front of this epistemological problem you keep raising and say "problem solved." however, the problem isn't solved by your simplistic assertions.

    I asked, on what basis you make the presupposiion that your senses are (at least roughly) accurate?

    You answered: ” I presuppose this fact because that is the way I experience the world.”

    So, you presuppose that your eyesight is accurate, because you use your eyes to see??? Surely you see the problem with that???


    No problem. Everybody has an a priori. Your's is God. Mine is that my senses accurately depict my reality. At least can observe my a priori. Your's is just in your imagination.

    Bart - ”If you are going to assert that our senses are worthless or potentially worthless is describing reality, then we are all left in the same position and God is no more or less likely than it was before.”

    Sye - Nope, I believe that we can trust our senses, as they are a good gift from God, I simply want to know on what basis you trust your senses?


    Your assertions of gifts from your imaginary deity do not work you out of the problem you are asserting atheists have. How do YOU know that what you believe God has revealed is real? The difference is, I can show you that what I am sensing is real. If you do not believe me that the stove top is hot, I can have you stick your hand on it. You do not have the equivalent for your deity.

    And I have answered your question a number of times about the basis for me trusting my senses - they are the only tools with which I experience reality. If there is something else that is objectively real that I can't sense, then I have no reason to believe that it is or isn't there. I am sorry that you do not like my answer, but that is what it is.

    Bart - ”Why cannot they be accounted for without God, and particularly the Christian God? Maybe this is the only way the universe could be, maybe there are multiple universes, maybe there is one universe but it could have been any number of different ways. I don't know, you don't know. Another human limitation (at least currently) is that we cannot observe what is outside our universe. I am fine with saying I do not know and do not need to make up an answer (God did it) just to have an answer without any reason to believe that answer is true."

    sye - Why don’t we start with your explanation for the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, and we’ll go from there.


    Nobody can say for sure what universal, abstract, invarient laws are. Reasonable people are always open to change their minds about what is invarient based on new observations. There probably are invarient natural laws, but I can never know for sure what they are. Like I said in my post quoted above (which you conveniently chose to only partially quote in your response).

    Bart - ”Like I said above, all of those things could have been programmed into a computer simulation by some non-deity super-intelligent being. However, I have no reason to believe that is true.”

    Sye - Problem is, you have no reason to believe that it isn’t.


    You cannot prove a negative. So unless there is reason to believe something is true, any reasonable person has to operate on the assumption that it isn't. Neither you nor I can disprove that we don't live in a computer simulation (regardless of your asserted "worldview").

    Sye - I asked: “How do you know that your reasoning about anything (such as your fallibility, evidence, history, the observable universe, and repeatable results) is valid?”

    You answered: ”Answer, twice above. Nobody can say for sure that their reasoning is valid.”

    How do you know this, since you have admitted that you cannot know if your reasoning is valid??? How can you possibly know what anyone else can know???


    Actually I answered as follows:

    Answer, twice above. Nobody can say for sure that their reasoning is valid. We can only go by what has happened in the past (hot stove example). We can only go by what we sense because if we cannot sense something, we have no basis upon which to say something is one way or not. Lets imagine a color that is not observable by humans. We will call it "thmad" (the word verification I see below while I am typing). Now neither you nor I can observe the color. Could either of us have any reason to say what the color looks like? I, like this debate, would say I don't know. You, like this debate, would assert that it is somewhat like a reddish blue even though you cannot demonstrate to me why this is so. Then you would assert that since I do not have an answer and you do (despite the fact that you cannot possibly demonstrate the truth of your answer to me) that you are eminently more reasonable than me. The problem is, in reality, neither of us can observe "thmad" and therefore neither of us has any reason to believe what it looks like or whether it even exists.

    Maybe you should try addressing what I actually argued rather than picking out quotes you wish to respond to.


    Bart - ”First part was answered above. My observation is that past experiences typically do indicate what will happen in the future.”

    Sye - 1. You have admitted that you cannot know that your past observations were valid.
    2. How do you know that they will continue to do so?


    I did admit that I cannot know for certain that my observations are a true reflection of reality, but as I have said at least ten times now, my senses are the only tools I have to observe reality. I have no way of knowing whether reality is different from what is observed or not. Neither do you.

    Bart - ”Is this something I can say with a certainty? No and neither can you.”

    sye - Again, how can you know what anyone else can, or cannot know for certain?


    Because humans are fallible as you and I have both admitted. No person has universal knowledge. Just because you assert that your imaginary friend exists, that does not make it true regardless of the number of times that you claim it is your "worldview."

    Bart - ”How to come to this conclusion.”

    Sye - Again, God is not my conclusion. He is the necessary starting point for reason itself.


    Forgive my typo. I meant to say How do you come to this conclusion and I think you got that. As to your response, I still have seen no reason given from starting from the point of the Christian God's existence.

    Bart - ”I have given my answers to your questions. Now please tell me on what basis you believe that the Christian God exists as opposed to Allah of the Koran (or that we live in a computer simulation).”

    Sye - Because the Christian God has revealed to us that He exists, (in our ability to reason, among other things) and that our nature, as He has revealed, is not that of a computer simulation.


    More assertion, no substance. How was this revealed to you, because it certainly wasn't revealed to me. Any Muslim could make the exact same claim. How do you know that what is in the Bible is correct? You must have used your senses to see this revelation. So your a priori, before even presupposing God's existence, is that your senses are an accurate depiction of reality. So your a priori is exactly the same as mine. You just add a presupposition that God exists from use of your senses, but you cannot direct me to any observational data which supports your assertion. Therefore, under both of our a priori assumptions (that our senses are an accurate depiction of reality), you cannot prove that your God exists.

    Bart - ”The overarching problem here is that in having any discourse or in trying to explore what is true or not, we all have to make certain presuppositions.”

    Sye - Exactly. Problem is, your presuppositions do not give us logic, science, mathematics, or morality, to name but a few.


    Wrong. Both of us share an a priori presupposition that our senses accurately depict reality. Otherwise, you cannot get to your 2nd class presupposition that God exists because the only way you get there is by trusting your senses in observing his alleged "revelation."

    Bart - ”But, you are left in the same philosophical quandary that every person is - you have no basis upon which to assume that what this supposed God is telling is reality. “

    Sye - 1. You cannot know this.
    2. Are you suggesting that God could not reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?


    You would have to use your senses to observe such a revelation, so your first presupposition before even getting to God is that your senses are an accurate depiction of reality. So your a priori is the same as mine and the logical problems you raise are just as big of a problem for you.

    Bart - ”Logic, reason and our senses are an a priori which both of us are still using in this debate. “

    Sye - Right, but I have a worldview which makes sense out of logic, reason, and the trustworthiness of our senses, whereas you do not.


    Just by asserting it as your "worldview" does not make sense out of anything. You are relying on your senses, logic and reason in making any sense out of your alleged observation of a revelation. Therefore, your a priori must be your senses before you get to God.

    Bart - ”Therefore, not only are you also "presupposing" that your senses are accurate, but you are trying to justify it with circular logic.”

    Sye - All ultimate authority claims, are by their very nature circular (i.e. you reason that your reasoning is valid), the difference is, I can make sense of mine, whereas you cannot make sense of yours, and yours, is in fact, inconsistent with what atheism says about reality. You cannot even tell us why circular reason is not allowed according to your worldview.


    You cannot make sense of your sidestepping the logical quandry you have raised. Just because you have postulated some alleged deity that, if it existed, could solve your logical problems, does not make the existence of that deity any more likely.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sye,

    Talking to Quasar: "How do you know that the senses which allow you to operate are valid?"

    Not to throw you under the bus or anything but as far as our senses, always does not follow logically from sometimes.

    If our senses deceive us sometimes (mirage in the desert) then logically sometimes they do not. Our senses' prima facie veridicality- that is, their very apparent truthfulness, remains. Senses are innocent until proven guilty, as long as we have no overriding reason to doubt them, as long as we are careful.

    But then I think you just answered it, sort of.

    Bart - ”If you are going to assert that our senses are worthless or potentially worthless is describing reality, then we are all left in the same position and God is no more or less likely than it was before.”

    Sye - Nope, I believe that we can trust our senses, as they are a good gift from God, I simply want to know on what basis you trust your senses?

    Bart,

    The difference is, I can show you that what I am sensing is real. If you do not believe me that the stove top is hot, I can have you stick your hand on it. You do not have the equivalent for your deity.

    Some of the others have heard the Hot Iron analogy but since you said this I will share again.

    A mother tells a child not to touch that hot Iron and the kid listens and believes his Mom. As soon as the Mom leaves the room the child touches the Hot Iron and gets burned. He just went from a belief the Iron 'was' hot to an experience that the Iron 'is' hot with 100% assurance. No one can come and tell him otherwise because his experience tells him different. He is 100% certain the Iron is hot and he has the burn to prove it.

    Well I have felt the Hot Iron of God's hand on me and cannot be persuaded otherwise because I have an experience that removed ALL doubt, I am 100% certain there is a God.

    On the flip an atheist cannot say they have 100% certainty based on a non experience, it is based on a belief still. They have a belief based on lack of said experience, but they remain uncertain (lack of assurance).

    ReplyDelete
  60. Well I have felt the Hot Iron of God's hand on me and cannot be persuaded otherwise because I have an experience that removed ALL doubt, I am 100% certain there is a God.

    On the flip an atheist cannot say they have 100% certainty based on a non experience, it is based on a belief still. They have a belief based on lack of said experience, but they remain uncertain (lack of assurance).


    Dan,

    I have no doubt that you think your subjective experience constitutes reality and if you want to go around believing that I have no problem with that (as I have said all along). However, when Christians go about saying that the existence of the Christian God is absolute fact based solely on their subjective experiences and cannot provide any objective evidence to support such a belief, then anybody else that does not believe them is absolutely justified in doing so. A person from any religious persuasion can say that they have subjectively experienced their their deity of choice. Therefore your subjective experience is meaningless to me because a Muslim, Jew, Mormon or any brand of Christian can say that they have subjectively experienced their deity in a way that is undeniable (and many do).

    And I, as an atheist, have never said that I am 100% certain that a deity doesn't exist. I also cannot say with 100% certainty that unicorns don't exist. I do not have perfect information. However, based on the information I have, I have no reason to suppose any of these things exist. You are acting like any time you cannot have 100% certainty about something, then you are "uncertain." While technically true, when the available information points to a probability of .1% probability of something existing, then you are pretty justified in saying something does not exist. You are acting like it is 50/50 whether God exists based on objective evidence. However, since I have yet to be provided with any objective evidence suggesting the existence of the Christian God, I see the odds as being much, much lower.

    ReplyDelete
  61. First let me thank you for at least trying to answer my questions instead of concocting elaborate smoke screens in order to dodge them. It is refreshing.

    My smoke grenade's aren't in yet... Ok, here goes:

    Qu wrote:
    ”- Memory. I firmly believe this to be valid and true because it is consistent with all available evidence from the present.”
    Sye replied:
    How do you know THAT though?

    Sorry, my wording was ambiguous: allow me to clarify. I was speaking from a first person perspective: "all available evidence" means "all evidence to which I have been exposed".

    Sye wrote:
    "Here’s a cause to doubt it [Memory]: You cannot know that the senses and reasoning you use to justify it are valid."

    I disagree: that's not a cause to doubt it because I have no reason to doubt that either of those are consistent with reality.

    Quasar wrote:
    "”- My Senses. I firmly believe these to be valid because if they were not, I would be forced to throw away every piece of data I had ever gathered in my life, and by extention everything I know and am. “
    Sye replied:
    EXACTLY. Now, why are you not “forced to throw away every piece of data you have ever gathered in your life, and by extention everything you know that you are?”

    Because I firmly believe my senses to be valid, have no reason to doubt that this is an accurate belief and have several reasons to assume that it is, including their own consistency with themselves, each other, the evidence and the rules of logic, which you responded to next...

    Sye wrote:
    Well, accounting for the evidence, rules of logic, and reasoning with which you determine consistency aside (for now), how do you know that they are not consistently invalid as opposed to valid?

    Because even if they are, it makes no difference. The objective universe in which we live acts and reacts in a consistent manner: it makes no difference to my behavior if it's something esoteric like a simulation being fed to a brain-in-a-jar. It's objective (we all experience it similarly), it's consistent, and that makes it valid enough for me to live my life.

    I'm out of time, I will continue later today. See you all!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Quasar wrote:
    ” but the primary reason for the conclusion of validity [of my senses] is that any other conclusion would mean that I was unable to operate.”
    Sye replied:
    So, you are basically saying ‘I know that my senses are valid, because I am able to operate,’ and ‘I am able to operate because I know that my senses are valid?’ Do you not see the problem there? It’s question begging.

    Sye, please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.

    I am only able to operate because I believe my senses are valid, but this has no bearing on whether or not they actually are valid. That falls under the purview of my previous "it makes no difference" point, due to their consistency.

    Quasar wrote:
    "”- Reasoning. Reasoning is the human process of taking observations and coming to valid conclusions about them. Invalid reasoning produces invalid conclusions, which do not match our observations of reality. I apply strict quality control to my own reasoning to prevent this as much as possible, by comparing it with as many different observations as possible, but I always keep an open mind. “
    Sye wrote:
    "Quasar, do you really not see the problem with using you reasoning to determine that your reasoning is valid? ...

    Sye, meaning no offence, this doesn't sound like a response to my previous paragraph. It sounds like a prefabricated response to anything and everything your opponent says which involves "reasoning".

    You will find that I did not attempt to say that my reasoning was "valid", only that I strive to keep it so by comparing it with as many different observations as possible.

    Sye continued:
    ... Besides, how would you know if your reasoning was invalid? Would you not have to presuppose valid reasoning in order to come to the conclusion that your reasoning was invalid?"

    There are many ways to establish whether a particular piece of reasoning is invalid. You seem to treat "reasoning" as a single unique item: it's not. Each time you attempt to reason, that's a seperate piece of reasoning, which can be valid or invalid.

    There are several ways to test the validity of a specific piece of reasoning: intuition, a logical step-through, compare it's conclusions to observation, etc. Each of these methods is distinctly seperate and uses different styles of logic to ensure that a specific piece of reasoning is valid. And to ensure that the methods themselves are valid, they can be applied to themselves and each other.

    The massive amounts of consistency that all this produces only further validifies my belief that the rules of logic in general are accurate.

    Sye wrote:
    "I am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong about many things..."

    My apologies: I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was refering to the subject matter of this debate. Probably a bad choise of words in hindsight.

    Sye continued:
    "...but not about those things which God has revealed to us such that we can know them for certain. (i.e. that He exists, and that His Word is true)."

    But how is it that you know these things? The bible is a book that you observe with your senses and interpret with the rules of logic, presuppositionalism is a construct that you need to use the rules of logic to get to, and any form of vision or personal revelation falls into the same category: percived and interpreted with the very same senses and reasoning you call everyone else to task on for using.

    Oooh, oooh, can I try the psychic thing again? Can I, can I, can I?

    Sye wrote:
    "Now if you claim that you could be wrong about everything, perhaps you can tell us how anyone can know something which could be false?"

    Firstly, you're doing a fine job of twisting the meaning of my words without actually misrepresenting them. See, if anyone wasn't paying attention, they might think that I had actually said at some point that "I could be wrong about everything", rather than "We don't know anything for certain, but there are many things which are so highly probable that not accepting them as true and treating them as such would be a sign of either mental deficiency or high level philosophy, quite possibly both."


    Secondly... what exactly is the definition of "know" in the context of this question? If it is a) "be certain of", then why is it necessary to "know" anything to be a rational person? If it is b) "Be convinced of beyond reasonable doubt", then what exactly is the point of the question?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Question for Sye...

    (I haven't read all of the comments on this and the previous article so apologies if this has been discussed already)

    It seems like you consisently ask the following question or something like it:

    "how do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid?"

    It seems like this rationale is being used to counter someones argument by indicating that, without absolute knowledge, one cannot know anything for certain. Past events have no effect on the future, etc etc......

    So my question is this:

    When you want to write your comment on this blog, how do you go about it?

    Do you type it in the little box at the top of the page? If so, why?

    Do you then hit the publish button? If so, why?

    I'm curious about how you know what to do?

    Thanks

    rhiggs

    ReplyDelete
  64. [Chris Mackey said: "Molesting children is wrong."

    Why?]

    Oddly, I was just about to ask you the same question. I know molesting children is wrong but how do you?

    Is there a Bible verse about not sexually touching people under 18 years old?

    Is there a list in the Bible of things that are absolutely morally wrong. Are some acts wrong but not absolutely morally wrong?

    These are genuine questions.

    I don't even know how you define "children". Are young animals children? Are germs?

    Honestly, these are genuine questions because I have no idea how you'll answer.

    Sorry, I forgot to add a response.
    It's wrong to exploit or hurt the vulnerable.

    Are your "moral absolutes" as bad as each other? Is lying as bad as genocide? What else do you define as moral absolutes?

    I'm opening these questions up to all Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Wooschkafrappen!!!!

    what a great way to waste like 2 hours and not get any of it! Thanks! This being unemployed stuff has turned out to be alot more fun than i first thought it was going to be. and that verse stuff up at the top of your first page? wow i had no idea that 1. I could die more than once and 2. dead people could cry. thanks for that too!

    Horseman

    ReplyDelete
  66. Horseman,

    "what a great way to waste like 2 hours and not get any of it!"

    If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. Your Salvation is the most important thing in your entire life.

    If you are unemployed may I suggest doing what I did when I was in your position. I shut the world out and read the Bible cover to cover and it was the best three weeks I could of ever spend doing something. May God help you "get" all of it through His Word.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Christianity I can tolerate. Calvinism is beyond the pale. I think the Phelps family is the perfect personification of this nasty ideology. God loves some, hates others. Why shouldn't you? That's right, picket the funerals of AIDS patients and American soldiers. Thanks God for hurricanes!

    In case you haven't, you check out their sites: godhatesfags.com, godhatesamerica.com.

    The know the Bible backwards, forwards and upside down, too.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Actually, I take it back. I love Westboro. This is BEYOND brillians.

    http://www.signmovies.net/videos/music/2007/20070925_therearenoheroes.html

    ReplyDelete
  69. James said: "Calvinism is beyond the pale."

    Whay can't you tolerate Calvinism James? Is Calvinism absolutely morally wrong?

    P.S. It is illogical to discard a philosohpy because of its abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Sye asks: "Whay can't you tolerate Calvinism James? Is Calvinism absolutely morally wrong?"

    Not every adherent of Calvinism takes it to its logical conclusions, of course. Generally speaking, however, it seems that it ends up creating a hardened heart in the believer towards other people.

    To simplify a bit:
    a) people are ALL bad
    b) God saves some bad people (the elect) but created the other bad people because they were necessary in the plan to save the few bad ones (I'm not sure why it's necessary, but no one's every explained this to me).
    c) because people are all bad, they deserve whatever they have coming to them, no matter what it is, and they should be thankful for any goodness given to them in this short time on Earth, even if it's a bit of a deception due to the fact that a fiery fate awaits them in the next
    d) everything that happens in this world to all the bad people (there are no "good" ones, remember) is all part of God's sovereign plan. The world cannot be "better" than it is currently, because that would imply that God is somehow less than good or less than powerful. No, the universe is going perfectly as planned, so thank God for all His marvelous deeds.


    I will not accuse you personally of anything: I don't know you or how these ideas play out in your own life. My general experience has been that Calvinists view the human race in SUCH a negative manner that human compassion becomes quite difficult, if not impossible.

    I recall mentioning an instance of a young girl who was brutally raped and murdered. The Calvinist's reaction was that as a "sinner" and "law breaker", she probably had it coming to her (he didn't use those words, but that was the gist). Other Calvinists have spoken with utter detachment about even "friends" and family members that they believe to be reprobates - but hey, it's necessary to usher the elect into Heaven. What can you do.

    I'm sorry, but dang, this is pretty dark stuff. I doubt that I could endure living with this mindset for any length of time.

    ReplyDelete
  71. James,
    Please allow me to take a shot at it.

    I believe you are talking about hyper-calvinism, which is a heresy or abuse of the doctrines of God's sovereignty in election that are found in the bible.

    The true believer never looks down on an unregenerate sinner as we know that we were no better when we were chosen out of the world.

    The proverb, "There but for the grace of God, go I"
    is not found in the Bible but it certainly is true.

    No man can boast that he was saved by his own wisdom, righteousness or works.
    So those who are truly saved are moved with compassion for the lost as we have received grace which is wholly undeserved, so who can boast against another like in your examples?

    I believe the doctrines of God's sovereignty in election are the toughest things for a person to get our limited minds around and scripture tells us so.

    2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;
    2Pe 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
    2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

    Here are a couple of sermon excerpts from Alistair Begg and Ravi Zacharias that deal with the antinomy of God's sovereignty and the responsibility of man.
    It helped me, I pray it does for you.

    http://www.lemoynebaptist.org/SovVsResp.htm

    ReplyDelete
  72. Sye TenB
    P.S. It is illogical to discard a philosohpy because of its abuse.
    Why, and if you do believe that, then you should get in touch with the young-earth creationists who are always pointing out the "abuses" of such "philosophies" of evolution.

    I know, evolution is a result of a branch of science and is not philosophy at all, but those YECs don't care too much for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Sye TenB,

    I see you have been responding to the other thread, but what about this one? I am really interested to see why you are not subject to the same logical quandary that you claim makes atheists irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Bart said: "I see you have been responding to the other thread, but what about this one?"

    Sorry, been kinda busy.

    "I am really interested to see why you are not subject to the same logical quandary that you claim makes atheists irrational."

    Simple. In order to know anything one must know everything or have revelation from a being (God) who does. It is the Christian claim that God has indeed made such revealtions to us (all of us), so that knowledge is possible.

    Atheist simply have zero basis for knowledge, yet claim to know things, exposing the inconsistency, and irrationality of their worldviews.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Kinda busy?

    The understatement of the year.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Simple. In order to know anything one must know everything
    Baloney right there...I don't have to know Quantum Mechanics to be able to read and write, for instance.

    or have revelation from a being (God) who does. It is the Christian claim that God has indeed made such revealtions to us (all of us), so that knowledge is possible.

    You need to show that your "God" actually exists in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I said: ”Simple. In order to know anything one must know everything, or have revelation from a being (God) who does.

    Reynold answered: ”Baloney right there...I don't have to know Quantum Mechanics to be able to read and write, for instance.”

    Alright Reynold, please tell us one thing that you know and how you are able to know it.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Fred Phelps is a sick individual. I don't know whether to hate him or pity him, but he should be kept away from other people.

    I congratulate Mark and Nate for being able to pull themselves out of that dark pit, and I pity Shirley for not.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Whateverman said: "I'm going to try to listen to all 14 parts (ug) of this Dan, and will comment when I'm finished."

    It's been 5 days. Surely in that time you could have come up with your conclusion that Dr. Stein was unprepared. :-D

    ReplyDelete
  80. Sye,

    He was hoping we would forget. I certainly don't blame him though. I would hate to be on the opposite side of Bahnsen.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Sye,

    I'll repeat my question...

    When you want to write a comment on this blog, how do you go about it?

    Do you type it in the little box at the top of the page? If so, why?

    Do you then hit the publish button? If so, why?

    I'm curious about how you know what to do?

    Thanks

    rhiggs

    ReplyDelete
  82. Sye said Simple. In order to know anything one must know everything or have revelation from a being (God) who does. It is the Christian claim that God has indeed made such revealtions to us (all of us), so that knowledge is possible.

    Atheist simply have zero basis for knowledge, yet claim to know things, exposing the inconsistency, and irrationality of their worldview.


    But Sye, you have asserted to me that we have no basis for trusting that our senses, thoughts and logic accurately depict reality. In order to receive this alleged "revelation," you must have observed it with your senses and thoughts. But since you have asserted that those senses and thoughts are unreliable, then under your argument you have no basis for believing that the revelation you have experienced is an accurate depiction of reality. You cannot hold atheists to one standard and yourself to another one.

    And your assertion that you must know everything to know anything is ridiculous. I guess in the philosophical sense, you can never know anything for sure and operate on probabilities. But I still do not see how this relates to your hypothesis that the Christian God exists.

    In fact, I have yet to see how a Muslim or Mormon couldn't make your exact same argument about revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Sye TenB said...

    I said: ”Simple. In order to know anything one must know everything, or have revelation from a being (God) who does.

    Reynold answered: ”Baloney right there...I don't have to know Quantum Mechanics to be able to read and write, for instance.”

    Alright Reynold, please tell us one thing that you know and how you are able to know it.
    I know how to read, Sye. Can't you tell? I learned from my parents who taught me, from my senses of vision and hearing.

    Now, you have to prove your statement: that one has to know Everything in order to know Anything. Good luck.

    You'll dodge somehow of course.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I forgot to add: Yes, Sye...I learned through using my senses. You senses should be telling you that I am able to read and type.

    On what basis do you trust your senses? Oh yes, "divine revelation" or "god made them so I can trust them" or something.

    Wait...as Bart pointed out:
    But Sye, you have asserted to me that we have no basis for trusting that our senses, thoughts and logic accurately depict reality. In order to receive this alleged "revelation," you must have observed it with your senses and thoughts. But since you have asserted that those senses and thoughts are unreliable,


    (Well, Sye didn't actually say that they were "unreliable", he asked "how can we know that they are reliable...still, your point is still valid...)

    then under your argument you have no basis for believing that the revelation you have experienced is an accurate depiction of reality. You cannot hold atheists to one standard and yourself to another one.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Reynold said: ”I know how to read, Sye. Can't you tell? I learned from my parents who taught me, from my senses of vision and hearing.”

    The question was:” Alright Reynold, please tell us one thing that you know and how you are able to know it.

    How are you able to know that you can read? How are you able to know anything about what you learned in the past? Since you obviously cannot ‘sense’ the past, you must be using your memory, and your reasoning to interpret your memories. How do you know that your memories, and your reasoning about them are reliable? Just out of curiosity though, how are you able to know that your senses of ‘vision and hearing’ are reliable?

    Without knowing any of those, you can’t know anything, can you now Reynold?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Rhiggs said: ” Sye,
    I'll repeat my question from the more recent article which you didn't get around to answering...”

    Ah sorry, I do recall reading this. I’ll answer now.

    ”When you want to write a comment on this blog, how do you go about it?
    Do you type it in the little box at the top of the page?”

    Actually I type my responses in Word, then cut and paste into that box.

    ” If so, why?”

    I have determined that that is part of the process for posting comments on this blog.

    ”Do you then hit the publish button? If so, why?”

    I have determined that that is part of the process for posting comments on this blog.

    I'm curious about how you know what to do?

    I know what I know based on God’s revealtion. I know that my reasoning is trustworthy based on God’s revelation, and I proceed on the expectation that past events will resemble future events based on God’s revelation.

    Now, rhiggs, how do you know what you know, and on what basis do you proceed with the expectation that past events will resemble future events.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Sye said:

    "I know what I know based on God’s revealtion. I know that my reasoning is trustworthy based on God’s revelation"

    So if your reasoning is trustworthy according to God's revelation then is it possible for you to make a wrong decision based on your reasoning?

    Out of interest, have you ever made a decision, however small, and then later decided it was the wrong decision? (e.g. I wish I'd not had that extra cookie) If so, then your reasoning at the time let you down and was not trustworthy, in contrast to God's revelation.


    "...and I proceed on the expectation that past events will resemble future events based on God’s revelation."

    What about when past events don't resemble future events which you predicted based on your trustworthy reasoning....was God's revelation wrong?


    "Now, rhiggs, how do you know what you know, and on what basis do you proceed with the expectation that past events will resemble future events."

    If everytime I take a certain action there is the same outcome then I will form the opinion that I 'know' what will happen. I would not say that I know absolutely what but that there is a high probability of the same outcome occuring. I don't need absolutes in my life, things that are 99.99999% certain to happen will do me just fine thanks.

    Now, I will use my judgement of past events to predict that a future event will probably happen:

    You will ask me some variation of the following question:

    "How do you know that the senses which which you observe, and the reasoning with which you interpret your observations are valid"

    I don't know if they are valid according to your criteria and I really don't care. They have served me well so far and I am happy to make predictions and decisions based on them.

    Just because you are of the opinion that I need absolute knowledge to have any knowledge is irrelevant to me. I am of the opinion that your senses are functioning well below par. I really don't care if you agree or disagree. You are the one who claims that a revelation confirmed the trustworthiness of your senses...yet in order to receive that revelation you would have used your senses. You may say it was extra-sensory, but then in order to realise this, you would have to use your senses.

    You cannot escape the same argument you keep using on others.
    If you can't understand this then perhaps all your cicular reasoning has made you dizzy.

    All the best,

    Rhiggs

    ReplyDelete
  88. Sye, have to assume at this point that you cannot meet the challenge that you have posed to atheists. You have made the same assumption that everybody does - that your senses are an accurate depiction of reality. There is no other way to rely upon the accuracy of you subjectively observed "revelation." Either you have to (a) admit that everybody is justified in relying on their senses as accurate depictions of reality or (b) that nobody (including you) are justified in relying on their senses. Either way, your argument collapses.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Sye TenB said...

    Reynold said: ”I know how to read, Sye. Can't you tell? I learned from my parents who taught me, from my senses of vision and hearing.”

    The question was:” Alright Reynold, please tell us one thing that you know and how you are able to know it.

    How are you able to know that you can read?

    I'm able to respond to your posts, Sye, for one thing. I'm even able to read the bible. What makes you think that you can read?

    That's be one mother of a delusion, Sye, if I've been able to get this far in life without knowing how to read. It'd be a wonder that people would be able to respond to me in writing, and then come up to me in person and confirm that I wrote what I thought I wrote to them.

    How are you able to know anything about what you learned in the past?
    Right backatch'a Sye...

    Since you obviously cannot ‘sense’ the past, you must be using your memory, and your reasoning to interpret your memories.
    Same problem you have.

    How do you know that your memories, and your reasoning about them are reliable?
    How do you know yours are? I've answered you many times before in the previous blog post. You just keep brainlessly asking the same questions. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean that I'm not answering them.

    Just out of curiosity though, how are you able to know that your senses of ‘vision and hearing’ are reliable?
    They corroborate one another. What are the chances that they'd both be wrong? When I'm eating something, that grows to include the other senses of touch, taste and smell that corroborate what's happening. What are the chances that all the senses would be wrong then?

    You've never explain how "divine revelation" works, Sye. How does "divine revelation" work in letting you determine that your reasoning and senses are valid? Remember, you need to have already used your senses in order to have first learned of your god in the first place. That includes reading the bible, which you once gave as an example of "divine revelation" which, if you'll remember, you use as your justification for knowing that your senses and "reasoning" are reliable.

    Without knowing any of those, you can’t know anything, can you now Reynold?
    Except that I can know those...you just refuse to accept that people can know things without shoving your god into the mix. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  90. So, aparently, the very reason why Sye uses his dishonest tactics is because it is his God who will choose who is saved and who is not. Meaning his fate is predetermined, and whatever he does, good or bad, has no say on the outcome.

    Nice to learn about Calvinism. That might explain a lot about your dishonest rhetoric Sye.

    Now, instead of keeping this sour milk among us, I would like to make a sincere question. For your whole rhetoric to work you claim that the bible is your "objective revelation." Right? (If wrong then I have to start all over, but who cares).

    Now, I said, and I stand by my claim, that using your rhetoric we can say that the world is flat because the Bible says so, and saying any different would necessarily presuppose that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. But you Sye, said that the Bible does not say such thing.

    (I am coming to the point, just try and follow)

    So, I can read, how I can read does not matter, and I read several passages that clearly imply that the Earth is flat. Not just that, also that it is immobile. I know you do not take your exegesis from those who deny the authority of the Bible, but try and help me out, because I am sure you have an answer. My question is not whether what I said is true, but this: If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and questioning it is the same as putting myself above God. Then, how oh how Sye, did you determine that the Bible does not even imply that the Earth is flat and immobile unless you have put yourself above God yourself (or someone else who does not deny the Bible's authority)?

    (Sincere question Sye. Just curious)

    (I hope I remember to come back and see what you say)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Sye said,"I am simply asking you on what basis you make this presupposition? If you don’t have an answer, just say so."

    I've been asking you, Dan and other that same question but still not answer after almost a year. So Sye and Dan you make the claim that,"Reason presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God" please show support for you assertion. Let me correct that, Please show support for many points in your assertion!

    "Actually, even if I granted you the validity of your senses and reasoning (which I do not),..."

    If you granted him??? You still need to prove the validity of your own sense, assertion, revelations, etc first. You're the one making the claims, please show support. If you cannot then, once again you show that your claim in moot.

    It shocks me that both of you still continue this after you've been pwned many time over the past year. I also find it difficult to imagine that you actually still believe your assertions still have any merit.

    Merry Mithras!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  92. So Dan, Its been about a month and 18 days, and I still see no evidence to support you claim that,"Reason presupposes universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God"

    what can be asserted without evidence, and be dismissed without evidence.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>