October 22, 2009

Explain Dignity

We have had many post about the fundamental argument for the existence of God and confirmation of the Christian system.

Bahnsen says in his book Pushing the Antithesis that the naturalistic worldview cannot account for freedom. If naturalism is true, then naturalists have no reason to believe in naturalism. The naturalists says that all thinking is but electro-chemical response of the gray matter in the material brain, and that these responses are determined by our environment. Human thinking is on the same order as weeds growing. If naturalism is true, then the advocate of the naturalistic approach is only saying he affirms naturalism because nature has determined that he would.

Naturalism contradicts freedom (and dignity). He has no reason for declaring naturalism to be true; he is just forced to say so.

Basic assumptions about human nature lead most deniers to distinguish man from the animals. Or as Aristotle would express it: higher up the "scale of being."

Take funerals to illustrate our inherent sense of dignity. In the Shanidar cave in Iraq, what evolutions claim as "Neanderthal" skeletons have been discovered with a characteristic layer of pollen, which suggests that they buried the dead with gifts of flowers. Even the far left wiki claims, "This has been interpreted as suggesting that Neanderthals believed in an afterlife." So even with evolutionary assumptions, anthropologists acknowledge the idea of human dignity.

Laws in courts is yet another example of the human race's assertion of dignity. Our entire legal system shows our inner realization of human dignity. Is that so within the entire animal kingdom? Lions, for instance, have been known to sniff their dead relatives then consume them.

Respect for the dead as evidenced in funerals and memorials is a distinctly human experience lacking any correspondence to animal activities.

If we are merely advanced animals, why can't we discover any primitive behavior in the animal response to death that "evolved" into our more advanced ceremonies? Certainly funerals have no survival benefit for the species of homo sapiens, as per evolutionary views of animal instincts. Rather funerals point to our sense of dignity and recognition of our personal values, which are wholly lacking in animals.

Idolatrous deniers cannot account for Human dignity.

Bahnsen also made me chuckle as he explained about these extreme environmentalists (tree hungers) who claim respect for all life. "They care for the environment and are kind to all living things. But if that were true then even being a vegetarian wouldn't make sense, for what of the dignity of carrots?"

What dignity, in a materialists worldview, inheres in a collection of DNA strands?

"No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life" claims William Provine, his atheist worldview comes clearly to expression in this statement and certainly precludes any justification of human dignity.

Evolutionist J.W Burrow wrote the intro for a new edition of "The Origin of Species: "Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance."

Bahnsen says "Dignity does not rest on anything in the evolutionary Universe. It defies the law of gravity, so to speak, and just hangs there-if it is affirmed at all. As it has been put, an atheist is someone with no invisible means of support. At best, dignity is simply a human convention. And when affirmed, it becomes a contradiction in the unbeliever's worldview."

The Christian view of man's dignity is affirmed in our Declaration of Independence.


bit.ly/Dignity

60 comments:

  1. "Human thinking is on the same order as weeds growing."

    I quit reading right there.
    Totally dishonest bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Froggie exhibits this inability to cogently follow an argument from its premise to it's conclusion. " Totally dishonest bs."
      Really, how so given your evolutionary naturalistic assumptions regarding cognition.

      Sit your ass down in the back of the bus because you cannot win this debate Einstein. We're driving it, thank you.

      Delete
  2. The baseline implication with this, Dan, is that all Naturalists are Determinists (not to mention reductionists); which is certainly a stretch.

    Froggie is quite right, you loose me with the same line….

    Breaking the post down even further, what you’re really arguing is “free will” vs. “Determinism”. At least that’s what you want to argue, but first you have to get over the hump of defending your notion of the Naturalists position. Next you have to account for free will – which certainly you’ll do by resorting to the idea that you presuppose it, in which case, I think the discussion is over, because you cannot account (logically) for dignity either.

    Of course, I’m not a naturalist, so I see no need to defend the position, nor am I deterministic.

    I’m with Froggie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew, don't play that slippery game, we know your deceptive tricks. You will not and cannot provide for us here a general epistemological theory by which you could objectively know that evolutionary theory is true. You lose the debate bro. Later

      Delete
  3. I agree with the comments on Dan's text.

    Here's my impression on the video. It is really funny when you're not American!

    I am really sorry for people who have to live in the same country as these people though. ;)

    After watching the video, we can conclude many things:
    - Historically, people have believed in God
    - Today, people believe in God
    - The constitution of the USA mentions God as the source of rights

    Ok... so what?

    ReplyDelete
  4. HA-HA!!! I just caught this.

    The post says:
    "an atheist is someone with no invisible means of support"

    I love the euphemism here. But how about we just make the direct point and rather say, "An atheist is someone without an imaginary friend."

    Let me ask you something, Dan, what is the point in "accounting" for something? Since that's another main point of the post.

    For example as a presupp'er, one of your base contentions is that atheists cannot account for logic. But so what? Whether or not someone can account for reason is no reason not to listen to them. If this were true, we'd begin every conversation with people with an account of what we say, but of course we don't do that. Rather we judge for ourselves.

    If I were to tell you, "Don't touch the stove, it's hot!" You wouldn't think to yourself, "Wait, this person cannot account for logic (as an atheist), how can I trust their ideas about the world."

    We generally trust that peoples reason is sound, and grant that others peoples view and experience of the world is essentially the same as our own. If we didn't, we'd be hard pressed to accomplish anything; we'd be paranoid and suspicious, i.e. we'd be nuts and live in an asylum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldnt have said it better andrew. Thanks!

      Delete
  5. Andrew,

    You are missing the whole presuppositional apologetic approach and goal.

    The whole "don't touch the stove" analogy is apples to oranges. I would trust your judgment in looking out for my behalf, but I don't question your compassion for me, I question how you explain how you are able to have compassion for your fellow man within that failed and illogical worldview of yours. You are confused about the worldview that you hold because your actions shows a Creator.

    Of course we trust our senses and even each other. Atheists claim they must have concrete evidence in a purposeless universe and then get on a plane and has faith that the pilot is not drunk and qualified enough to know what he is doing.

    No, the "How does one account for" are simply epistemological and metaphysical worldview questions. It is from this worldview perspective we are showing the atheist how absurd there view of things are.

    From what standards are the atheists engaging life with?

    I very much recommend Bahnsen's book, I found myself saying "oh snap" to many points he made. Some I have posted here on various posts, but not all. It addresses the very crucial life-questions that we all ask in a worldview perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan:

         "You are missing the whole presuppositional apologetic approach and goal."
         The approach is deception. And the goal is to confuse people so they fail to recognize your double-standard.
         "The whole 'don't touch the stove' analogy is apples to oranges."
         No, it's apples to apples. You are only requiring that people "account for" their reasoning when it goes against the idea of your fictitious god. (Even if there is a god, yours is fictitious. If you believed, even remotely, that your god was genuine, you would have no need of the lie that is presuppositional apologetics.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is just one little problem with the video and that is that the Declaration of Independence has no Legal standing in American jurisprudence. None.

    The DoI was written before the Founding Document, The Constitution.

    Between the time that the DoI and the Constitution the founders could see that the thirteen mini theocracies that would be involved in perpetual quest for domination of the new government; thus we have a totally secular document as our founding document and the First Amendment quickley followed.

    Had it not been for the First Amendment this country would now be divided into scores of theocratic feudal states in the style of Iran, Iraq, Croatia, etc., & etc. except of course by now all of us would have been speaking Russian or German because all those warring theocracies would have consumed all their energy at taking themselves back into the dark ages.

    The DoI has no legal or moral standing in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here is just one example of what Christians would be thinking if they ever got any power (Whatever brand of Christian that could win the domination of all the others.)

    Here's another vile, hateful, threatening email received by Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

    "When we get Jesus back where he Belongs-- our country will come together. WE will then have a country for real Christians == Our mission has been to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation http://www.americanvision.org/ Then we can enforce our Bible commandment of LUKE 19:27 = "But Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me." = = = PRAISE JESUS !! (If non-Christians don't leave the Country = their blood will be upon themselves ) .."

    I'll bet Dan is looking forward to that!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan,
    You’re starting our here by avoiding the question, you state:

    “…I question how you explain how you are able to have compassion…”

    Once again, who cares? My 2nd grader loves the classic peppermint bon-bon ice cream, but she can’t account for that, so what. As a typical 7 year old girl, she has a lot of compassion for animals, once again, she can’t account for that, so what. You know, come to think of it, I love that ice cream too, I don’t why, I can’t account for it, I just put it in my mouth and BAM, its good. Heck, I have compassion for people and animals to, why, I don’t know, I just see them and there it is, just like the taste of the ice cream. SO WHAT.

    You know what I think your problem is? It’s certainty. You argue that you have, and demand from others, certainty – in the Cartesian sense. Problem is, the certainty you have yourself is merely feigned. Why do I say this? Have you ever seen a blog that goes around preaching the good word that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? No, of course you don’t. Why? Because we all know it is. i.e. If God was so self evident, you wouldn’t waste your time with this blog, just as you wouldn’t waste your time telling people the sun was going to some up.

    Of course, you can here argue, “But how do you know the sun is REALLY going to come up tomorrow.” Of course I can give the scientific argument, talk about the spin of the earth and rotation around the sun etc. But ultimately the argument (like any, even yours) backs into question begging, i.e. we’ll ultimately make a circular argument to justify our belief. However, it’s not really this circular argument that justifies our belief that the sin will come up, our belief is well enough justified through our mutual experiences. We all grant it, as it continually happens everyday, and if we started talking about it and debating it, we’d find ourselves wasting eachothers time as we watched the sun come up everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This gets me back to you and your need for certainty. It’s not the atheists who demand this. He uses science not for the purposes of certainty, but for the purposes of talking about the world in ways that better support our ever changing needs and interests. It is you who inserts the word “GOD” into things, then proclaims that through this dialogue you’ve achieved certainty, however as I’ve already stated, this blog is proof that you really don’t have any at all.

    Finally, on certainty itself. Nothing is certain (i.e. absolute). There is no such thing as 100% certainty in life… One cannot say, I’m 100% certain that the sun will come up tomorrow. In this way there is no sense in arguing for certainty, as everything is always grounded in probability and predictability. i.e. we don’t have faith that the sun is going to come up tomorrow, and we don’t have faith that the pilot of a plane is sober, we simply believe that IT’S PROBABLE, and we’d be right to deduce as such. In this way, we simply don’t worry about it, don’t think about it, etc. etc.

    In conclusion, you want people to be able to ACCOUNT for “X” to demonstrate CERTAINTY. However, your presupposition about God as a means of accounting for “X” and thereby having certainty is no more or less assumed than the atheist who would claim certainty. Even SyTenB himself argued that the argument for God is necessarily circular, and he couldn’t account for why that one circular argument was true, while all other were wrong. What it amounts to is you having faith in an imaginary friend, and the atheist relying on probable deductions and inferences.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Andrew: what you said. 100% certainty is only to be had within systems of formal logic such as mathematics: there's no certainty that our models of the real world are 100% true. Doesn't matter if you're a theist or an atheist: if you're absolutely certain about something in the world, your certainty is misplaced.

    Dan: you often (at least dozens of times here on this blog) contrast the uncertainty of atheists with the certainty of theists. My question to you: what good is certainty, if it's likely to be wrong? Muslims are "certain" that the Koran is the Word of God, and you are "certain" that the Bible is the Word of God. You can't both be right, and you might both be wrong. In any case, there is a large group of people who are certain, but they're wrong. So what good is "certainty"? I'd rather be uncertain about something than certain and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, and dignity: my explanation of dignity is that it evolved, as did good and bad, first in the biosphere, and then in the ideosphere. Dignity evolved because it helps societies respect individuals, and keeping the balance between the needs of societies and individuals is what culture (including morals, religions, and laws) is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan, this is link is unrelated to this post, but I didn't know your email, but I thought this video would be helpful in your ministry.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2nU4IqVIzQ

    ReplyDelete
  14. @todd

    Just wasted 7 minutes watching the video which can be summarized like this:

    - Some scientists who presupposed an intelligent designer did important discoveries

    - Some scientists who presupposed evolution were wrong at some point in the past

    Conclusion? Well, nothing of course, but from the video it seems that this is suppose to mean that presupposing an intelligent designer is a good thing for scientifict advancement.

    Of course, the fact that TODAY biologists and doctors largely agree on the usefulness of the organs presentend in the video, AND also believe in evolution, is not mentionned.

    Pathetic... talk about having a conclusion and looking for "facts" supporting it. I am glad Todd is a pastor and not a scientist...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andrew et al,

    What a sad worldview you all have. I am certain about many things, its a shame that you don't even care to be certain of things.

    >>Zilch proclaimed: "I'd rather be uncertain about something than certain and wrong."

    Well, I am certain that I love my wife and children. This would be a much better place if you would all feel the same instead of thinking that it's merely "PROBABLE" that you love your kids. *sigh

    So your worldview is simply rendered illogical. Like I said before all forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic but the fact that God gave us senses that you all cannot even trust in your worldview. How can you even trust your eyes reading peer reviewed papers?

    You put your faith and trust scientists all the time. You are certain that science itself is a valid form of understanding things in this universe. So this hogwash you and others are trying to spew is laughable. You are being intellectually dishonest whoever claims they are not certain of things.

    Our senses' prima facie veridicality

    Why is that? (From a epistemological and metaphysical point)

    ReplyDelete
  16. DAN: What a sad worldview you all have. I am certain about many things, its a shame that you don't even care to be certain of things.

    At least I am certain that I exist, unlike you... lol

    DAN: >>Zilch proclaimed: "I'd rather be uncertain about something than certain and wrong."

    Couldn't agree more!!

    DAN: Well, I am certain that I love my wife and children. This would be a much better place if you would all feel the same instead of thinking that it's merely "PROBABLE" that you love your kids. *sigh

    What a dishonest comment. As if you need to believe in a god to be sure that you love your family. Bullshit. Why don't you say that it's only True Christians like you who truly love their family while your at it?

    DAN: So your worldview is simply rendered illogical.

    Hum, by what exactly? By the fact that you love your family but that all other people probably love their family?

    DAN: Like I said before all forms of reason is circular in nature

    Ya, even I think therefore I am is circular to you, we got that, lol.

    DAN: one must use logic to explain logic but the fact that God gave us senses that you all cannot even trust in your worldview. How can you even trust your eyes reading peer reviewed papers?

    We can use logic to account for logic. The fact that you think that your God gave you your sense says nothing concerning that. You still need to prove the existence of your God to say anything else, which you fail to do. As folks at the Iron Chariots wiki say it:

    Presuppositionalism is a Christian apologetic which requires that one must hold that the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible as its preeminent standard of thought. That only the existence of God provides a justification for logic.
    [...]
    Despite the ridiculous sounding nature of the apologetic, it is taken quite seriously in some circles. The argument simply consists of demanding the truth for Christianity be ceded from outside logic and without presupposing the truth of Christianity, no logical argument can exist.
    Due the the absurd nature of this claim, it cannot be attacked logically because presuppostionalists have rejected logic with this demand. Since one can't "defeat their arguments" (as any attempt to use logic is deemed off limits until you declare that they are right), they declare victory.

    DAN: You put your faith and trust scientists all the time.

    Yes, and so do you. Do you verify the brakes on your car each time you want to use it? You trust the scientists that designed them. I would not call it faith thought, but that's your problem...

    DAN: You are certain that science itself is a valid form of understanding things in this universe. So this hogwash you and others are trying to spew is laughable. You are being intellectually dishonest whoever claims they are not certain of things.

    Yes, the scientific method is the best way to understand the world we live in. The fact that we are all using computers today to interact is a manifestation of the success of this method.

    At the same time, no, technically, we can't never be 100% sure of anything. We could all be connected to a Matrix-like system where all we see, feel, experience, is only electrical signals sent to our real physical bodies. But you know what, even in that case, I would still be 100% sure that I exist.

    But that being said, it does not mean that we should question everything everyday. We would not progress if we were doing so. That's why we go to school, to learn what others have discovered so that we can save time instead of finding out ourselves.

    Do you teach your kids that the Earth goes around the Sun or do you throw them outside and let them guess?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Todd,

    Thanks for that, I have written many things about these vestigial organs in the past. Some atheists are convinced that whales have vestigial legs, for instance, but they discount that they are used for reproduction and barely assert that it is vestigial because it looks like legs.

    Evolutionary presuppositions have destroyed many lives. Doctors/scientists even used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died. Over 3000 years ago in Leviticus 17:14 it has always said that blood is life all along.

    Blessings Todd and welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I meant bare assertion in my failed English.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @DAN

    Biology has nothing to do with religious beliefs....

    The fact that you use words like Atheists and Evolutionary presuppositions when discussing such subject shows your lack of understanding of the issues.

    Intelligent theists accept science, thus accept evolution, and are not scared by new findings.

    You said "Doctors/scientists even used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died" How is that suppose to be related to evolution?

    Plus you even explicitly say 140 years ago, which mean your example comes from a time BEFORE evolution was understood! Darwin had just published his book and scientists were just starting to figure out what it implied...

    The fact that the Bible says that blood is life is useless. The Bible says so many things that you do not follow yourself, so why pick and choose this particular one...

    I already pointed out the fallacy of attributing scientific claims to the Bible. You did not reply to that of course because it's easier to just avoid the rebuttal, right?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan,
    I'm not speaking of general certainty in a rhetorical sense. I'm talking about 100% certainty, and you've demonstrated that you don't have it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Andrew,

    >>I'm not speaking of general certainty in a rhetorical sense. I'm talking about 100% certainty, and you've demonstrated that you don't have it.

    The question is still out there.

    Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could "reveal" some things to a person that are false and make that person convinced of the correctness of the revealed fake knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  23. By the way, "vestigial" means "showing the past" not "useless".

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chris,

    >>Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could "reveal" some things to a person that are false and make that person convinced of the correctness of the revealed fake knowledge?

    I grappled how to answer this question. The first one was:

    Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.

    The other is that it is completely absurd as to the logical reason to Create all of this, just to deceive to us. That sounds like something Satan would do though, minus the omniscient, omnipotent part of course.

    Another approach, I was going to explain about the physical indicators that someone is lying and that by their sub conscience actions, breath, glands, eyes, body English, etc. We know it is wrong to lie. Which would of lead to the explanation of God giving us a conscience and so on.

    At this point, just pick one of those paths.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x).

    I predict this answer comes back to haunt you.

    The other is that it is completely absurd as to the logical reason to Create all of this, just to deceive to us.

    To quote the Bible : "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD."
    :-) The way I see it, it's absurd to think a god wouldn't enjoy deceiving its creations! I enjoy deceiving my creations. Telling fantastic stories and sharing a laugh when the children realize it's just fantasy.
    Should we simply dismiss ideas that we believe are absurd?
    Are you admitting it IS possible for an omnipotent being to make you believe a falsehood?

    Another approach, I was going to explain about the physical indicators that someone is lying and that by their sub conscience actions, breath, glands, eyes, body English, etc. We know it is wrong to lie. Which would of lead to the explanation of God giving us a conscience and so on.

    The problem with this is there ARE NOT physical indicators that someone is lying. That's why polygraphs accuracy rates are only a little better than chance.
    And what would a creation having a conscience have to do with whether an omnipotent being could make you believe falsehoods?

    ReplyDelete
  26. >>The problem with this is there ARE NOT physical indicators that someone is lying.

    There is such a thing as dead giveaways. There is a true scientific validity of polygraph testing.

    There is ample of evidence of mendacity. Just look it up. Have you ever played poker and heard of the term a "tell?" Do you feel all that is merely made up and fake?

    Ask a professional poker player if you can 'tell' if someone is bluffing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan
    Evolutionary presuppositions have destroyed many lives. Doctors/scientists even used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died. Over 3000 years ago in Leviticus 17:14 it has always said that blood is life all along.
     
    You should look around here a little bit, Dan instead of reading about evolution and medicine from bullshit places like AIG...they still say for instance, that evolution claims that "vestigial" means useless. Outright lie. You'd think a medical doctor would know that...

    That guy also goes on about how antibiotic resistance is not evolution...Crock. It's just evolution on a small scale.

    This is related to AIG's usage of the old "there's never any increase in information provided by evolution" crap.

    It is crap. here, and here.

    More on medicine and evolution. You may want to do a search on the Panda's Thumb page for "Egnor" as well. Tangentially related to the topic, but interesting nonetheless.


    Now, as to that biblical "foreknowledge" that you claimed above, I've pointed out this site to you before.

    From said site:
    Henry Morris states, "The fact that the blood sustains life is a relatively modern concept, especially associated with William Harvey’s discovery in 1616 of the circulation of the blood" (p.371). This concept of life being in the blood is a very old concept common to the ancient Near East (Kedar-Kopfstein 1978, 237-9). Let us look at a few examples.

    In Mesopotamia the code of Hammurabi (about 1727 BC) which came well before Leviticus was written says, ta-ba-ak na-pis-ti-öu ki-ma me-e which Driver translates, "to pour out his life-blood like water" (Driver & Miles 1955, 101-3). The Akkadian word napiötum is very similar to the Hebrew word nephesh (Driver & Miles 1955, 295). Probably around the same time that the code of Hammurabi was written, Enuma Elish was composed which describes the creation of man. Tablet VI says, "Kingu it was who created strife, And caused Tiamat to revolt and prepare for battle. They bound him and held him before Ea; Punishment they inflicted upon him by cutting (the arteries of) his blood. With his blood they created mankind" (Heidel 1942, 47). Kedar-Kopfstein states, "Blood is regarded as the true life substance, so that damu (blood) and balatu (life) can be used in parallelismÖ.In rites of renewal, the blood of the person being renewed is obtained by cutting the skin, or an animal is slaughtered as his substitute and its blood used (1978, 238).


    Or really...all one had to do was watch someone bleed to death!! The problem was that people also thought that the diseases were also in the blood, didn't they?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan:

         "Although there are numerous variations in testing procedures, the polygraph instrument itself is fairly standard. The polygraph measures several, usually three, physiological indicators of arousal. Changes in physiological arousal exhibited in response to a set of questions are taken to indicate deception or truthfulness, The polygraph instrument, it should be noted, is not a 'lie detector' per se; i.e., it does not indicate directly whether a subject is being deceptive or truthful. There is no known physiological response that is unique to deception (108,122,123). Instead, a polygraph examiner obtains a subject’s responses to a carefully structured set of questions, and based on the pattern of arousal responses, infers the subject’s veracity. This assessment has been called the 'diagnosis' of truthfulness or deception (139)." [Emphasis added]
         Do you read your own links? When you add in the fact that the omnipotent being you propose would be able to fake any reaction (inability to do so would fail to be omnipotence) and your attestation to his truthfulness falls completely flat.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hey look! A Reynold frenzy!

    One way to chum the waters is talk about Evilution. Interesting.

    Sorry no time to comment further.

    ReplyDelete
  30. From Dan's Link

    POLYGRAPH VALIDITY
    In 1965 and again in 1976, the House Government Operations Committee concluded that there was not adequate evidence to establish the validity of the polygraph...

    FINDINGS
    OTA concluded that the available research evidence does not establish the scientific validity of the polygraph test...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan,
    You said:

    “Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?”

    This question is a bit presumptuous, as it grants before hand the existence of the object, which of course I do not. The more appropriate pre-question would be, “Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being EXISTS?”

    And even then, since both questions contain “POSSIBLE”, a yes or no response is really quite irrelevant as it doesn’t lead us to any conclusion at all. We may as well ask, “Do you admit that it is possible that Medusa could turn people to stone?” Well, of course this question is dependent on whether or not Medusa exists.

    Tell you what, Dan (you know I’m a theist) I have no problem with “omniscient and omnipotent”, my problem exists with your ontological component, “BEING”. It’s Platonic in nature, and I’m certainly no Platonist. Your position begs the question, and therefore is logically untenable.

    There is no BEING per se….. Unless of course, you can prove otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The biggest difference between my position and your position is that you're an "absolutist" and I am not.

    Absolutism in any form is dogmatic and fundamentalist, whether existing in atheism or theism. Of course, there are plenty of absolutist atheists out there, even in the intellectual world, and we should be just as weary of their positions as we should be religious fundy's.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Who would of thunk that some of these Atheists would quote mine to induce for their side a favorable result. The results are in the numbers or AKA, evidence.

    # Six prior reviews of field studies:

    * average accuracy ranged from 64 to 98 percent.

    # Ten individual field studies:

    * correct guilty detections ranged from 70.6 to 98.6 percent and averaged 86.3 percent;
    * correct innocent detections ranged from 12.5 to 94.1 percent and averaged 76 percent;
    * false positive rate (innocent persons found deceptive) ranged from O to 75 percent and averaged 19.1 percent; and
    * false negative rate (guilty persons found nondeceptive) ranged from O to 29.4 percent and averaged 10.2 percent.

    # Fourteen individual analog studies:

    * correct guilty detections ranged from 35.4 to 100 percent and averaged 63.7 percent;
    * correct innocent detections ranged from 32 to 91 percent and averaged 57.9 percent;
    * false positives ranged from 2 to 50.7 percent and averaged 14.1 percent; and
    * false negatives ranged from O to 28.7 percent and averaged 10.4 percent.

    We can see that for the most part from a purely scientific perspective the Polygraph is reliable for detecting deception,

    Exceptions to the deceptions is noted in the study. You give tell tale signs subconsciously like it or not. I certainly don't need aid from an apparatus to detect my own kid's lies that is for sure. Spin it anyway you want, lies are detectable.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You don't find the range for those numbers quite large for something that's supposed to determine guilt?

    false positives ranged from 2 to 50.7 percent and averaged 14.1 percent

    So 3 out of every 20 innocent people would read as guilty on average with 10 out of every 20 as the worst?

    false negative rate (guilty persons found nondeceptive) ranged from O to 29.4 percent and averaged 10.2 percent.

    So 1 out of every 10 guilty persons can trick it on average with at worst being 3 out of every 10?

    Keep in mind that this study that you are referring to is 27 years old. (See: here)

    In this article from 1997, it shows how a polygraph's accuracy is just a little better than chance and how easy they are to manipulate.

    In any case, what the hell does this have to do with atheism or religion?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan +†+ said...

    Hey look! A Reynold frenzy!
     
    Is that what you call it when someone presents links with evidence that refutes a false claim of yours, a "frenzy"?

    Fucking idiot.

    One way to chum the waters is talk about Evilution. Interesting.
    Well, you spoke bullshit, I presented evidence that refuted it. Deal with it.

    Sorry no time to comment further.
     
    Hey look! A Dan dodge!

    You've found time to respond to the other guys, so maybe what it is is that you realize that your claim that evoution is useless in medicine is bullshit so you're just going to be quiet and hope it goes away perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Reynold said:
    your claim that evoution is useless in medicine is bullshit so you're just going to be quiet and hope it goes away perhaps?

    THAT deserves an answer

    ReplyDelete
  37. You're amazingly dishonest, Dan. Seriously, if you believing that lying and dishonesty is a sin, you need to sit down and read this blog with an unbiased eye. A sincere Christian with real faith would be questioning his/her own motives and behavior - both of which you clearly do not.

    Deflecting != debunking, and to the core of your mortal sinful soul, you know this.

    I'm glad I stopped posting here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. >>I'm glad I stopped posting here

    Said the man who just posted here

    You are completely wrong in your accusations. There I just did what you did, Just bare assertions to discredit.

    Whatever dude

    ReplyDelete
  39. @memoryless dude

    Reynold said:
    your claim that evoution is useless in medicine is bullshit so you're just going to be quiet and hope it goes away perhaps?

    THAT deserves an answer

    ReplyDelete
  40. >>your claim that evoution [sic] is useless in medicine is bullshit so you're just going to be quiet and hope it goes away perhaps?

    I am going over my notes and do not remember saying this. Ad hoc much?

    ReplyDelete
  41. @DAN

    You did say, in this comment section:

    "Evolutionary presuppositions have destroyed many lives."

    This is worse than saying that evolution is useless in medecine...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan- you sound like a man under stress. How are things going over there? Our second kid, Rosalind, kept us waiting for more than a week, but everything came out fine.

    Take care, best wishes to Patty, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  43. >>Dan- you sound like a man under stress.

    Not at all. If you have read the comments from WEM, and Reynold, then you should be making that comment about them. Strange that you didn't though. Hmmm.

    Anyway, we are having a blast. Mommy is home we are doing nesting things getting the house ready for a new baby and such. We are enjoying that she is here for a couple of weeks before the baby. The kids get to see mommy a lot and that in itself is a new change. Conner was 10 days late so we have zero worries. We are very excited and doing great!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dan:
    Not at all. If you have read the comments from WEM, and Reynold, then you should be making that comment about them. Strange that you didn't though. Hmmm.
     
    Strange that you still didn't deal with any of my points which shoot down your assertions.


    Hmmmm.


    Ok, it's not that strange...Dan is still just dodging.

    ReplyDelete
  45. You mean to tell me that Patty is not out working until she goes into labor? How spoiled can you get...

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dan,
    You said:
    "Evolutionary presuppositions have destroyed many lives."

    I don’t know that one should go so far as to say, “destroy many lives” however evolutionary presuppositions do exist, and are just as irrational as your presuppositional position.

    I will go back to something I’ve said in the past. Evolution is not true in and of itself, any more than (for example) you wallet is true. It’s what we SAY about evolution that is either true or false, i.e. the propositional scientifically validated statements. In another way, as it’s only propositions in language that can either be true or false, one might say, “My wallet is black” or on the other hand say, “this particular species is a descendent of this particular one” along with the supporting evidence of that claim.

    To simply grant evolution ex nihilo (as you say) is to presuppose it. The only thing we can ascertain about evolution is whether or not our current propositions about it have validity scientifically. In other words, any good scientist doesn’t assume it all together, he only goes by what we have thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  47. So yes, Dan, neither you or Bahnsen understand determinism and how it's different from "naturalism" and such.

    What's your point? Why do you feel the need to express your ignorance in these issues?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan:

         "correct innocent detections ranged from 12.5 to 94.1 percent and averaged 76 percent"
         That wide range suggests a general uselessness. The statistic is all over the map and the average (over 10 data points) likely represents a great deal of fluctuation.
         "correct innocent detections ranged from 32 to 91 percent and averaged 57.9 percent"
         Well, that set was little better than a coin toss. Here's a tip. In the first set, there was at least one examiner that pronounced 87 1/2 percent of the innocent people as guilty. In the second set, there was at least one that pronounced 68 percent of the innocents as guilty. What we have is a tool that ranges from very useful to catastrophic. That makes it unreliable.
         More generally, there are signs largely correlated with deception. But they are not universal. Even worse, some people can beat the polygraph because they don't give those signs. Others never have a chance because those signs are always present even in the absence of deception.
         Now, in the face of your claim that you would be able to detect deception from your god, would an omnipotent being not be able to fake whatever reaction you would regard as truthfulness? You have pointed out that the usefulness of "lie detection" stems from humans having reactions largely beyond their control. That does not hold for a presumed omnipotent being.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Pvblivs: word.

    Dan: how many innocent people in jail is "too many" for you?

    A couple of years ago I read an article in the New Yorker about the polygraph and its problems. They also talked about people who are very good human "lie detectors", much better than the polygraph. If I can find it again, I'll post it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. >>how many innocent people in jail is "too many" for you?

    I would rather set 100(million) guilty guys free then put one innocent man in jail that is for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sometimes I laugh at

    Atheists who are so certain

    of their uncertainty

    and of their certainty

    that God does not exist

    to them at least.

    (^:

    ReplyDelete
  52. Who else just got notifications for 2 comments from a 'Tim', on this super old thread, yet cannot see new messages here?

    Cheers to anyone reading this! Lots of familiar names I have not encountered in a while...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim was replying to the two first comments. Just do a search for his comments on the page. Geek card revoked for one day. :)

      Delete
    2. Haha, good one; completely forgot that we can reply in-line! But still not as silly as commenting on 6 years old posts ;)

      Delete

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