I believe that there is no monster of Loch Ness -- although I concede that I could be wrong. If you were honest, you would also concede that you could be wrong....But you claim that the flowers and trees are "revelations." The existence of nature does not establish a god, let alone yours specifically. I am also aware that you claim your holy book. But other religions claim theirs. (emphasis added)Dr. Bahnsen rhetorical comeback hits the mark. Suppose a basketball player, say Michael Jordan, beats every worthy opponent in one-on-one basketball games. He can justifiably claim to be the best individual basketball player in the world. Suppose further that another jealous (and peevish) basketball player who was previously trounced by Jordan resents that he (Jordan) has titled himself "the best player in the world." His comeback is, "just because you have beat every current player does not mean that there is not another one coming who is better than you." Jordan's response can be anticipated; "bring on my next opponent." The theoretical possibility that there may be another player better than Jordan is not a concern to him. In the world of basketball, it is the one who is actually the best player, and not who is possibly be the best player, that is of importance. In the practice of apologetics, things are similar. What matters are actual worldviews not possible worldviews.
Second, while this criticism is of no practical value to the non-Christian, it would be, nevertheless a serious criticism of TAG if correct. The reason is easy to see. If there are an infinite number of worldviews and TAG only refutes a small slice of them, if one may speak this way, then it has not established that Christianity is the necessary precondition of human intelligibility. That is, even granting that TAG demonstrates the absurdity of all actual worldviews, it does not follow that all possible worldviews are likewise absurd.
Bahnsen's comeback is to place the one who makes this move on the horns of a dilemma (actually a "trilemma"). The "unbeliever either (1) implicitly assumes the Christian's presuppositions, (2) considers it a mystery that not everything is mysterious or nonsensical, or (3) offers a worldview in which words and reasoning are meaningful."[36] On (1) the imaginary opponent loses the debate. On (3) the Christian proceeds to refute the proffered worldview. As for (2), Bahnsen contends that this is tantamount to acknowledging defeat. He then considers the possibility of one making a blind leap of faith; one who "hold[s] out the hope that someday, somewhere, someone will furnish an adequate autonomous worldview to protect unbelievers against the compelling rationality of Christianity."[37] This, he says, is identical with (2) and since this is acknowledgment of defeat, the opponent loses the debate.
"'But, of course, you fully concede that you could be wrong.'
ReplyDelete"It's called intellectual integrity. I believe that there is no [monster] of Loch Ness -- although I concede that I could be wrong. If you were honest, you would also concede that you could be wrong. Stan attributes this unwillingness to so concede to fear. I am inclined to agree. Ironicly, it is the claims of those who admit they could be wrong that have any merit. Until you admit that you might be wrong about your god, your claims are vacuous.
"'God existing is not subjective at all. God's revelations have objectively shown that He indeed exists. Besides rejection of evidence is not equal to 'no' evidence. You of all people should know this.'
"But you claim that the flowers and trees are 'revelations.' The existence of nature does not establish a god, let alone yours specificly. I am also aware that you claim your holy book. But other religions claim theirs."
The above is my original post with the nearly two paragraphs that you removed with an ellipsis bolded. I would say that the manner in which you used the quote significantly altered the meaning and was dishonest. At the very least, with so much intermittent material omitted, you should have presented it as two separate quotes instead of pretending the "but you claim the flowers..." sentence referred back to the "if you were honest..." one.
The comeback you presented misses the mark. Here is a better analogy. John Bluffman says he has a son who is better than any basketball player known. To show this, he has set up a hoop 1000 feet high. He insists his son can make that basket. (No one has ever seen this son he claims to have.) Whenever anyone challenges him about the existence of this alleged son, he says, "well, can you make the basket."
The TAG "argument" is much like Mr.Bluffman. The 1000 foot high hoop is like the "accounting for logic" and his unverified son is like your god.
Now, alternatively, you (after Sye) claim that christianity is the only possible worldview to make sense of the world. Because of the claim, possible worldviews are what matters. You should accept the challenge of any described worldview, not just the ones "registered with the league" by actually being adopted by someone. It would be like "the best player in the world" refusing a challenge because the challenger did not submit the 2 billion dollar registration fee (cash, no checks.) You have been presented with challengers. Are you going to say that only the registered ones matter? Or are you going to accept the challengs?
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteThe above is my original post with the nearly two paragraphs that you removed with an ellipsis bolded.
Noted.
I would say that the manner in which you used the quote significantly altered the meaning and was dishonest.
Aw come on now. Really? Well the public record is now corrected by you, thanks. I just read that point a few days ago and thought it countered the "so does other worldviews" well. It was to showcase that point not to misquote you. Carly Simon said it best. This song isn't about just you.
Thanks for keeping everything honest though.
And Dan sidesteps the whole jist of Pvblivs' response, as usual.
ReplyDeleteGet some balls Dan and admit you could be wrong.
"This, he says, is identical with (2) and since this is acknowledgment of defeat, the opponent loses the debate."
AIG has been reposting some of Bahnsen's writings recently and it is acutely obvious that he is a master of fractured logic, as you are, Dan. He merely recycles the blather of Van Til and the TAD, which have been soundly refuted time and again. It all boils down to the asinine and simplistic rhetoric of your superhero, Sye.
You should stick to the business of starving your wife and beating your kids because it is very plain to see that you have no understanding of logic and reason.
This post is exposed for what it is; a vain attempt to recover after having your ass kicked on your last piece of ignorance, "Atheism is Definitely a Religion!"
P.S.
For someone who is so critical of Wikipedia, it is curious how you are so prone to quoting it.
More Sye TenB presuppositionalist baloney.
ReplyDeleteYou insist there really is a God, but you can't produce him. "Account for" that.
Remember, Dan--You believe you're going to fly in the air like a bird one day. You believe that one particular historical figure from 2000 years ago created the entire universe. When you hold beliefs like that, you don't get to lecture the rest of us on logic.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteNice job cutting and pasting the entire thing from a paper by Michael R. Butler (http://butler-harris.org/tag/). Its very deceitful and disrespectful to post the exact words from someone else's work for an entire post, but not give credit to your source.
I'll comment on your continuing saga of inane babble on this post and the previous one later today.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Oh I'm sorry, I see you have a link to the source, but I still feel you should have footnoted it. Most people probably would not follow the link or read the entire content of the page and discover that you just copied a portion of it.
ReplyDeleteWiB
~AC
Analogy, you're doing it wrong.
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead said:
ReplyDeleteAnalogy, you're doing it wrong.
Hmmm....Michael Jordan is no longer the best basketball player in the world. He was once very good but his ability declined over time...
I think Dan's analogy fits perfectly with Christianity!! ;)
Dan quoted Bahnsen:
ReplyDeleteWhat matters are actual worldviews not possible worldviews.
This is essentially the same as Sye's refusal to refute worldviews that his opponents do not hold...
This is a shameless and pathetically transparent attempt to move the goalposts from logic to faith. If you believe there is logical proof of God's existence you must be prepared to refute scenarios that are equally plausible by using logic, not by casting doubt on faith.
Belief in a particular scenario is irrelevant. The onus is on you to disprove any scenario with a logical argument that would not also cast doubt on your God scenario.
Ideally you need a proof that shows all other worldviews to be wrong, but you do not have one. That is why your method of attack changes to demanding that your opponent really believe in the scenario they are positing. Indeed, Sye was never able to refute my Invisible Pink Hammer worldview so as it stands it is equally as plausible as your God worldview.
Can you refute it Dan? The floor is yours...
Mr. Science is the only 'worldview' which has ever "scored goals" (and we're talking the domain of progress, logic and math, not politics and bloody conquests). My PC in front of me is the result of a season of exquisite "slam dunks".
ReplyDeleteAll the while, Mr. Christianity, Mr. Islam and other 'worldview' contenders haven't produced one uncontested point. Not one. Although Mr. Islam sometimes claims he did. But if you look right, it was Mr. Science scoring, in a team where Mr. Islam happened to be a cheer leader.
Mr. Atheism and Mr. Agnost, of course, knows they are only cheer leaders. They knows he should lay no claim on Mr. Science's great achievements. They support him so wholeheartedly, that Mr. Christianity is confused and blames Mr. Science of having a "no god" mentality (which is wrong, Mr. Science holds a "whatever can be observed" mentality).
Of course, Mr. Christianity and all other theological misters, claim they will be scoring "la belle", the slam dunk exceeding and dwarfing all of Mr. Science's carreer. Some time of course, in the future. Later. When we died.
Recently, Mr. Christianity starts to realize that future points don't count now, really. So he's getting into another game. He claims ownership of the points of Mr. Science by telling everyone that those slam dunks cannot be scored without gravity (true) and that his "God" made that gravity (unproven).
So, Mr. Christianity claims "the points are really mine, mine, mine" and I am actually the best player ever.
No, says Mr. Atheist, those points are not yours, you have never proven that gravity is God's.
In fact this is irrelevant, because in fact he also says: "don't claim those points, you're dishonest" because what Mr. Science did is to study gravity openly and honestly, without presupposition as to use it optimally to score points. And that worked. Presupposition simply does not work, as Mr. Christian proved throughout history. The earth would still be considered flat!
But Mr. Christianity has always been good in exploiting uncertainty and and an honest (thus vulnerable view) of the world. He goes on by saying: "if you cannot account for gravity, you cannot claim the points scored by Mr. Science. Then they are mine, mine, mine." (quote: "As for [admitting mystery], Bahnsen contends that this is tantamount to acknowledging defeat.")
Not that Mr. Atheism (and surely not Mr. Agnost) is particulary interested in claiming those points, of course.
But in fact, the reverse is true: as long as you cannot score any points, Mr. Christianity, you cannot account for gravity. In other words: you clearly don't understand it, with the simple proof that you simply don't score any points.
The same is true with logic.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'll make you a deal.
If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
rhiggs said...
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead said:
Analogy, you're doing it wrong.
Hmmm....Michael Jordan is no longer the best basketball player in the world. He was once very good but his ability declined over time...
I think Dan's analogy fits perfectly with Christianity!! ;)
Only if no-one had ever seen Michael Jordan and just accepted some dead people's assertions that he was indeed 'magic'.
Geert Arys,
ReplyDeleteMr. Atheism and Mr. Agnost, of course, knows they are only cheer leaders.
Keep in mind that Mr. Atheism's commitment to the foremost authority of natural science was not scientifically founded. It was a personal leap of faith!
that Mr. Christianity is confused and blames Mr. Science of having a "no god" mentality (which is wrong, Mr. Science holds a "whatever can be observed" mentality).
The maneuvering reveals that scientists, using the paradigm of evolution, are not disinterested solars, seeking in some neutral fashion to follow the evidence wherever it happened to lead. They had a particular conclusion in mind from the outset, thus desiring to shape and revise their espoused principles until they would (hopefully) prove what they originally wanted. (evolution) They too, "keep the faith."
"Atheism's commitment to the foremost authority of natural science was not scientifically founded. It was a personal leap of faith!"
ReplyDeleteYeah, you said that before. It goes along with your trying to frame science as a religion which didn't work last time you tried it. Most of us do not "believe" in science.
We look at the empirical evidence.
You can fill Yankee stadium with books full of empirical evidence for all natural phenomena. You have one old dusty cultural artifact.
"The maneuvering reveals that scientists, using the paradigm of evolution, are not disinterested solars, seeking in some neutral fashion to follow the evidence wherever it happened to lead. They had a particular conclusion in mind from the outset,...."
There you go again, trying to show that scientists are presuppositionalists rather than empiricists to assuage your embarassment at your untenable belief system.
Geert- What you said. Very nice.
ReplyDeleteDan, you say:
The maneuvering reveals that scientists, using the paradigm of evolution, are not disinterested solars, seeking in some neutral fashion to follow the evidence wherever it happened to lead. They had a particular conclusion in mind from the outset, thus desiring to shape and revise their espoused principles until they would (hopefully) prove what they originally wanted. (evolution) They too, "keep the faith."
What Froggie said. Can you give us some evidence for this claim? While it's not inconceivable that a scientist could ignore data supporting the Bible, I don't know of any cases. But there are quite a few in the other direction. For instance Darwin, like many great scientists, started out as a Christian. He didn't want to believe in evolution at first, and was only persuaded after much deliberation and soul-searching that it must be true. As he wrote to J.D. Hooker:
At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.
In absence of evidence to the contrary, it would seem that the problem most scientists have with the Biblical account of Creation is not the result of atheistic bias, but of the facts. Sorry- reality has a well-known evolutionary bias.
The maneuvering reveals that scientists, using the paradigm of evolution, are not disinterested solars, seeking in some neutral fashion to follow the evidence wherever it happened to lead. They had a particular conclusion in mind from the outset, thus desiring to shape and revise their espoused principles until they would (hopefully) prove what they originally wanted. (evolution) They too, "keep the faith."
ReplyDeleteComplete bull, Dan. Read The Creationists by Ronald Numbers.
You don't know about the history of evolutionary thought. Either that, or you're lying.
After dealing with evangelicals for so long, neither option would surprise me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete