January 14, 2011

Freddies Faith Is Dead

In our continued discussions, we are getting hung up on something that I wish to put to bed, and post about to reference in the future when someone says that laws are merely descriptive, not prescriptive, etc.

So it was asked of Freddies Dead, the avatar or description for a real person, "Also, what observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?"

Update: At the time, his response to this question was "Here you're asking me to give a proof for a law I suspect may not actually be absolute, lol."

This question is to flush out the logical misstep of this non believer. Its also to help others understand what is actual, fact and truth. That laws by nature are not only absolute (unchanging in principle), but prescriptive.

I went on with, "You see, just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T)"


Freddies Dead said, "So now it's language that decides whether logic conforms to reality or reality conforms to logic? lol, this just gets better and better..."

OK, so lets take this a step at a time, to work this through. Hopefully, this will solve this problem once and for all. Please work (read walk) with me here.

The term "Freddies Dead" is merely a descriptor of the reality of you, as a real person. Now, if we take away the description "Freddies Dead", does the reality of you disappear? No. I hope we agree at this point. Moving on.


So, as I understand your point, the language which describes ALL OF reality is the vehicle we use, as humans, to make sense of things, i.e reality. Still fine?

The language itself, what you term as "descriptive", denotes certain prescriptive properties to it. Certainly in the sense of grammar, spelling, and structure. To spell your name "Freddies Dead" I CANNOT use "diedfres eadd" and make any practical sense. As a Pragmatist, you should understand the prescriptive nature of the English language. There are certain rules, laws, and guidelines to follow. Someone made these laws, rules, and guidelines to follow to make sense of things.

So what you are calling 'descriptive' for reality, is in reality, using a prescriptive tool to do so.

Now, can you account for the reality of, what our language calls, laws of logic, laws of nature, and uniformity of nature?  In your world, we use what you call the descriptive term, "laws" to help us identify that reality. So the question is, how do you account for those things in reality that we are calling 'laws of logic', and uniformity of nature? In other words, order.

Photo by Noel A.Tanner
These questions leads to the whole point of FAITH. It all comes down to faith, yet again. You place your faith in science and what I think is pragmatism. Yet, science too needs to build itself on faith. We both put faith in something.

The difference is that your faith is blind, mine is not. As Bahnsen said "The non-Christian scientist may and does believe in the presence of order, but he has no warrant for doing so"

Van Til goes on to say that belief in order is not only unsupported by the unbeliever, but also contradicted by the assumption that there is nothing "behind" the events of history or "behind" the thinking of men that could provide such order; thus, everything is random ("chance").

This is why Christianity is the only rational faith. Atheists, in their blind faith, have no foundation for intelligible scientific and philosophical procedure.

The real irony is that modern science teaches that experimentation needs to presuppose the idea of an open universe (nothing precluded, no restrictions are imposed in advance). The order of nature, we are told, is what it is because of an impersonal unchanging regularity. (Cf. Morris Cohen, Reason and Nature)

Bahnsen, once again, points out, "Only the Christian theory of knowledge, based as it is upon the absolute authority of the Word of God speaking in Scripture, makes communication of any sort possible anywhere between men. Without this presupposition men would have no integrated selves and the world would be a vacuum. Without the Christian theory of being there would be no defensible position with respect to the relation of men and things. Neither men nor things would have discernible identity...History would be unintelligible...

...Unbelievers cannot bring together both order (unity) and change (diversity) in their reasoning or in their view of reality. They thereby make nonsense of both, and all arguments against God are intellectually self-defeating." ~ Van Til's Apologetic, pg 117-121

107 comments:

  1. The term "Freddies Dead" is merely a descriptor of the reality of you

    Wrong. The term is descriptive of someone he wishes you to believe he is. Just like a shirt can be worn to portray an idea the person does or does not particularly subscribe to, an avatar is not necessarily descriptive of the person who uses it.

    Your essay fails even before it gets started.

    ReplyDelete
  2. More to the point, the term "Freddie's Dead" both IS and IS NOT the person who uses it to try (and fail) to educate you.

    Your post demonstrates that the law of non-contradiction isn't absolute.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >>This is why Christianity is the only rational faith. Atheists, in their blind faith, have no foundation for intelligible scientific and philosophical procedure.<<

    Because Dan use the WRONG/outdated
    definitions of:

    >>knowledge (n)--the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

    know (v)--1. To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty. 2. To be cognizant or aware of.<<

    Instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

    Dan has created a 'god of gaps' arguement again, this time the 'gap' in knowledge doesn't exist, and is purely word play.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ant,

    >>Because Dan use the WRONG/outdated
    definitions of: knowledge

    If you consider Dictionary.com "WRONG" and "outdated" then, whatever.

    1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

    –verb (used without object)
    8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.

    >>Instead of [Wiki]

    I thought it was hilarious (read sad) that you will believe Wiki MORE THEN a dictionary. You do understand that ANYONE can change wiki. To prove my point I changed to:

    "the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject with certainty;"

    You see, all the denying Atheists change things towards a bias all the times. I cannot tell you how many arguments I have had with Wiki about the bias they allow to one side. Evolution being the main one. I remember adding a reference to the "Lucy" page that gave evidence to the doubt to the validity of the finding and the critique of it. I was flagged and blocked indefinitely for POV violation. Its bias is obvious. Atheists CANNOT change a dictionary so the truth is out there. You are just angry that you cannot change the dictionary to your BIAS. Too bad the truth is out there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wiki, referenced the oxford dictionary.
    I would seem that different dictionaries have different meanings of the same word.
    Backing up

    >>There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.<<

    So you show Bias by finding/filtering info (this case knowledge definition) until you use the ONE that supports your claim/s.


    Don't be upset your 'god of fake gaps' argument has been revealed, it had a good run for awhile, you should be proud ;0

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan - you really are a minor league player, aren't you ?
    That post was simply pitifully dreadfully argued.
    You need to wait for Sye to turn up and do your thinking for you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So it was asked of Freddies Dead, the avatar or description for a real person, "Also, what observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?"

    This question is to flush out the logical misstep of this non believer. Its also to help others understand what is actual, fact and truth.


    I note you don't actually point out any logical misstep on my part and do not even attempt to address my answer. Instead you just skip ahead as if you have responded, lol.

    The term "Freddies Dead" is merely a descriptor of the reality of you, as a real person. Now, if we take away the description "Freddies Dead", does the reality of you disappear? No. I hope we agree at this point. Moving on.

    Your analogy fails from the outset. My 'internet name' doesn't really describe 'me' in any way. Also any change to 'me' doesn't necessarily require a change to my 'internet name'.

    So, as I understand your point, the language which describes ALL OF reality is the vehicle we use, as humans, to make sense of things, i.e reality. Still fine?

    Still not - language doesn't describe 'ALL OF' reality - just those parts of it we have experienced. Should our experience expand our language would adapt to describe it.

    The language itself, what you term as "descriptive", denotes certain prescriptive properties to it. Certainly in the sense of grammar, spelling, and structure. To spell your name "Freddies Dead" I CANNOT use "diedfres eadd" and make any practical sense. As a Pragmatist, you should understand the prescriptive nature of the English language. There are certain rules, laws, and guidelines to follow. Someone made these laws, rules, and guidelines to follow to make sense of things.

    So what you are calling 'descriptive' for reality, is in reality, using a prescriptive tool to do so.


    WTF?!! What difference do the rules of language make, do they suddenly force reality to conform to logic Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now, can you account for the reality of, what our language calls, laws of logic, laws of nature, and uniformity of nature? In your world, we use what you call the descriptive term, "laws" to help us identify that reality. So the question is, how do you account for those things in reality that we are calling 'laws of logic', and uniformity of nature? In other words, order.

    And now back to the presupp nonsense, albeit dressed up in a few extra words as if they will suddenly make it more sensible, lol.

    These questions leads to the whole point of FAITH. It all comes down to faith, yet again. You place your faith in science and what I think is pragmatism. Yet, science too needs to build itself on faith. We both put faith in something.

    The difference is that your faith is blind, mine is not. As Bahnsen said "The non-Christian scientist may and does believe in the presence of order, but he has no warrant for doing so"


    While the Christian merely imagines a deity and claims that is his basis, lol.

    Van Til goes on to say that belief in order is not only unsupported by the unbeliever, but also contradicted by the assumption that there is nothing "behind" the events of history or "behind" the thinking of men that could provide such order; thus, everything is random ("chance").

    I don't really care what Van Til claims, he never bothered to support his assertions either.

    This is why Christianity is the only rational faith. Atheists, in their blind faith, have no foundation for intelligible scientific and philosophical procedure.

    Lol, you have been shown time and again that presuppositionalism does nothing but play semantic games - it never demonstrates the truth of its position - yet you continue to trot out the same tired argument that your imagined deity somehow trumps the atheist claim.

    The real irony is that modern science teaches that experimentation needs to presuppose the idea of an open universe (nothing precluded, no restrictions are imposed in advance). The order of nature, we are told, is what it is because of an impersonal unchanging regularity. (Cf. Morris Cohen, Reason and Nature)

    What definition of science are you using and which part of it allows that Cohen's remarks are taken as a base assumption?

    Bahnsen, once again, points out, "Only the Christian theory of knowledge, based as it is upon the absolute authority of the Word of God speaking in Scripture, makes communication of any sort possible anywhere between men. Without this presupposition men would have no integrated selves and the world would be a vacuum. Without the Christian theory of being there would be no defensible position with respect to the relation of men and things. Neither men nor things would have discernible identity...History would be unintelligible...

    ...Unbelievers cannot bring together both order (unity) and change (diversity) in their reasoning or in their view of reality. They thereby make nonsense of both, and all arguments against God are intellectually self-defeating." ~ Van Til's Apologetic, pg 117-121


    More fantastic claims that they singularly fail to demonstrate, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ant,

    >>Wiki, referenced the oxford dictionary. I would seem that different dictionaries have different meanings of the same word.

    If Wiki reference Oxford Dictionary then you are FORCED TO CONCEDE that "certainty" is part of the definition.

    Look for yourself

    1c. "be absolutely certain or sure about something:"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul,

    >>Dan - you really are a minor league player, aren't you ?

    Yes, as you.

    >>That post was simply pitifully dreadfully argued.

    What a well thought out counter for my arguments! I must concede to all of these points. I cannot fight it any longer. You completely annihilated my entire argument with "post was simply pitifully dreadfully argued" Wow, I never thought of that by that angle before. Thanks for showing me the light. *pshaw

    I am sure the audience is now convinced that your mere 'bare assertions' are ample as an argument against my points. You win the debate, well done.

    >>You need to wait for Sye to turn up and do your thinking for you.

    Sye doesn't have a chance with you! We are all pretty worried now. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Freddies Dead,

    >>I note you don't actually point out any logical misstep on my part and do not even attempt to address my answer. Instead you just skip ahead as if you have responded, lol.

    Valid point. I did update the post to reflect that point you made.

    "Update: At the time, his response to this question was "Here you're asking me to give a proof for a law I suspect may not actually be absolute, lol."

    This question is to flush out the logical misstep of this non believer. Its also to help others understand what is actual, fact and truth. That laws by nature are not only absolute (unchanging in principle), but prescriptive. "

    >>Your analogy fails from the outset. My 'internet name' doesn't really describe 'me' in any way. Also any change to 'me' doesn't necessarily require a change to my 'internet name'.

    So then there are certain prescriptive properties to this whole language thingy. Thanks for pointing that out. :7)

    I am sure you would concede, maybe not, that the term "Freddies Dead" is a label that is used by you to identify yourself. It is then, a label that describes you in some way, even if its a Curtis Mayfield reference. Also the term "Freddies Dead" describes something about Curtis Mayfield too. But clumsy analogy aside, this still is not important to the meat of the discussion here. Moving on

    >>Still not - language doesn't describe 'ALL OF' reality - just those parts of it we have experienced.

    A simple "Define: reality" in Google gets this as the first thing: "world: all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you" Which was my point in the first place. Wait, are you claiming that our current language is inadequate to describe reality?

    BTW, Synonyms for Reality: absoluteness, actuality, authenticity, being, bottom line, brass tacks, certainty, concreteness, corporeality, deed, entity, existence, genuineness, how things are, like it is...

    Are you certain reality does not contain certainties and absolutenesses? *snicker

    >>What difference do the rules of language make, do they suddenly force reality to conform to logic Dan?

    More like the language conforms to reality. Its just a point made that your claim of language being "descriptive" is itself a prescriptive tool to understand, and reason for, reality.

    >>And now back to the presupp nonsense, albeit dressed up in a few extra words as if they will suddenly make it more sensible, lol.

    I also notice that this "clarification point" you made DIDN'T actually address the point I made. Much the same as what you accused me of. Hypocrite much? You NEVER did answer the question!!! Resume ducking - with obfuscation.

    >>While the Christian merely imagines a deity and claims that is his basis, lol.

    Please back up this bare assertion. Better yet, answer the questions...if you can. Resume ducking - with obfuscation.

    >>I don't really care what Van Til claims, he never bothered to support his assertions either.

    Fox and the grapes fallacy. Cognitive dissonance in its purest forms. Nice.

    >>you have been shown time and again that presuppositionalism does nothing but play semantic games

    No, I think you are confusing that with your definitions of words.

    >> it never demonstrates the truth of its position

    Any evidence to that bare assertion?

    >> yet you continue to trot out the same tired argument that your imagined deity somehow trumps the atheist claim.

    How about you actually address the questions BEFORE we stop talking about it. Avoiding much? Resume ducking - with obfuscation.

    >>What definition of science are you using and which part of it allows that Cohen's remarks are taken as a base assumption?

    The definition that conforms to reality. Are definitions of terms, merely subjective? Postmodern much?

    ReplyDelete
  12. FD,

    >>More fantastic claims that they singularly fail to demonstrate, lol.

    More ducking - with obfuscation. lol.

    ReplyDelete
  13. English language games = proof Dan is dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What happend to the Post about the blizzards?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan,
    Ok I'm free to concede that "certainty" is part of a definition.


    Remember

    >>There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.<<

    So AGAIN you show Bias by finding/filtering info (this case knowledge definition) until you use the ONE (1c) that supports your claim/s.

    If proof of a super creature relys on word games then... well you know :7

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan, your problem appears to be that you think every description of the way things are must be prescriptive, because you believe your god intended everything to be as it is.

    This is what Bahnsen Burner meant when he said that you hold to the primacy of consciousness - that everything was preconceived in a vast disembodied immaterial mind before it came into existence.

    Perhaps this is why you're getting so confused about the difference between prescriptive and descriptive. You think everything must be the way it is, as opposed to thinking that it just happens to be the way it is.

    You might notice, if you think about it, that there's a difference in context between the laws of physics and the laws as laid out in a national constitution, for example. The latter are prescriptive, laying out the things one must not do if one wishes to avoid legal penalties. The laws of physics describe the way matter and energy characteristically behave, as observed by scientists. They are an attempt by human minds to formulate our understanding of the natural universe. They don't tell nature how it must behave.

    If this isn't clear to you, I suspect it's because you spend so much time trying to obscure the issue in an effort to gain any foothold, no matter how tenuous, for your crackpot religious dogma. This is amply demonstrated by your attempt to suggest that language is, of itself, prescriptive, when we know that language is descriptive of the conditions of reality as we experience and understand it.

    Language changes all the time. Sure, there are certain rules to using language effectively, but these are merely reflective of our common understanding. There's no absolute linguistic law that says you can't misspell words or use poor grammar - except for the practical consideration that people might not understand what you're saying if you do so.

    Language rules are also highly flexible - for example, there's no law that says you can't turn a noun into a verb; that's why we now use the term 'googling' for looking stuff up on the internet. Language and its attendant rules will continue to change with our collective understanding. Similarly, as we learn more about the natural universe, our formulations of natural laws will become more and more descriptive, but at no point will they be an unalterable code that tells the universe how to behave.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan +†+ said...

    Freddies Dead,

    >>I note you don't actually point out any logical misstep on my part and do not even attempt to address my answer. Instead you just skip ahead as if you have responded, lol.

    Valid point. I did update the post to reflect that point you made.

    "Update: At the time, his response to this question was "Here you're asking me to give a proof for a law I suspect may not actually be absolute, lol."


    ROFLCOPTER - my response was longer than that and simply stating what (part of) my response was isn't the same as actually addressing it.

    This question is to flush out the logical misstep of this non believer. Its also to help others understand what is actual, fact and truth. That laws by nature are not only absolute (unchanging in principle), but prescriptive. "

    So you do believe that reality conforms to logic then?

    >>Your analogy fails from the outset. My 'internet name' doesn't really describe 'me' in any way. Also any change to 'me' doesn't necessarily require a change to my 'internet name'.

    So then there are certain prescriptive properties to this whole language thingy. Thanks for pointing that out. :7)

    WTF? So by pointing out that something that doesn't actually describe me wouldn't need to change if I did (and vice versa) I've somehow suggested that language is prescriptive? I think you need a course on reading for comprehension Dan.

    I am sure you would concede, maybe not, that the term "Freddies Dead" is a label that is used by you to identify yourself.

    It's a label that I use when poting on the internet - no more, no less.

    It is then, a label that describes you in some way, even if its a Curtis Mayfield reference.

    And just how does it describe me? My name's not freddie and I'm not dead - there's nothing in the language that describes me.

    Also the term "Freddies Dead" describes something about Curtis Mayfield too. But clumsy analogy aside, this still is not important to the meat of the discussion here. Moving on

    It is quite important actually as it shows that your claim, that reality conforms to logic (and now language it seems), doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

    >>Still not - language doesn't describe 'ALL OF' reality - just those parts of it we have experienced.

    A simple "Define: reality" in Google gets this as the first thing: "world: all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you" Which was my point in the first place.

    So your point is that reality only consists of what you've experienced now? I understand that Christianity is inherently subjective but this really takes the biscuit, lol.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  18. cont'd...

    Wait, are you claiming that our current language is inadequate to describe reality?

    Have you experienced ALL OF reality Dan? What do you suggest we do about things we discover as our experience broadens? And I'm talking about homo sapiens as a whole here. When we come across something that has no language to describe it, what do you think happens? Does that thing conform to the language we have? Or do we adapt the language (add new words) to describe the new 'thing'? Hint: it's not the first option ;-)

    BTW, Synonyms for Reality: absoluteness, actuality, authenticity, being, bottom line, brass tacks, certainty, concreteness, corporeality, deed, entity, existence, genuineness, how things are, like it is...

    So we're not discussing your subjective experience of reality then (like you seemed to claim earlier)? Maybe you could try distinguishing between which version you're arguing for going forward?

    Are you certain reality does not contain certainties and absolutenesses? *snicker

    No, I'm not. I had thought I'd made that quite clear by asking you time and again to demonstrate their existence. Sadly all you seem to do is offer word games such as this as your 'proof'

    >>What difference do the rules of language make, do they suddenly force reality to conform to logic Dan?

    More like the language conforms to reality.

    Halle-fecking-lujah - this is what I've been getting at all along.

    Its just a point made that your claim of language being "descriptive" is itself a prescriptive tool to understand, and reason for, reality.

    No, there is language to describe prescriptive processes but that language itself is not prescriptive, it merely describes the process in question.

    >>And now back to the presupp nonsense, albeit dressed up in a few extra words as if they will suddenly make it more sensible, lol.

    I also notice that this "clarification point" you made DIDN'T actually address the point I made. Much the same as what you accused me of. Hypocrite much? You NEVER did answer the question!!! Resume ducking - with obfuscation.

    Wrong, I addressed your question (what observation etc...) in the part of my answer you ignored in your update. The law of non-contradiction is actually an appeal to ignorance - we have never seen A be not A at the same time and in the same way so it must be true of all things. Or maybe you have a proof which demonstrates the law in principle? Note that the moment you add context and/or time to your example the law ceases to be absolute.

    >>While the Christian merely imagines a deity and claims that is his basis, lol.

    Please back up this bare assertion. Better yet, answer the questions...if you can. Resume ducking - with obfuscation.

    Lol, what do you think you're doing when you 'presuppose' your God, Dan? Are you concluding your God exists based on evidence? No, you're 'presupposing' that He exists, then stating that various things (logic, morality etc...) couldn't possibly exist if He didn't, before finally claiming that as the evidence that allows you to 'presuppose' God exists in the first place. (i.e. imagine God, claim things rely on His existence and then claim that those things are your evidence for imagining a God in the first place).

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  19. cont'd...

    >>I don't really care what Van Til claims, he never bothered to support his assertions either.

    Fox and the grapes fallacy. Cognitive dissonance in its purest forms. Nice.

    It's fallacious to ignore your appeals to authority now? Show where Van Til backs up his claims, he doesn't, he makes the claim and then, when called on it, he simply asks the non-believer to support his own position first (fallaciously shifting the burden of proof).

    >>you have been shown time and again that presuppositionalism does nothing but play semantic games

    No, I think you are confusing that with your definitions of words.

    The confusion is all yours Dan, it's not the definitions of words that's in question but their effect on reality. You have claimed that language is prescriptive and also conceded that it's descriptive (at different times in just this one thread) - which is it Dan?

    >> it never demonstrates the truth of its position

    Any evidence to that bare assertion?

    Every article written by the likes of Van Til and Bahnsen I'd suggest you have a read of BB's examination of their works over at his blog but when he suggested it you said there was no way you were trawling through all that. I'm not about to reinvent the wheel when I'm pretty sure you'd dismiss it as a doughnut

    >> yet you continue to trot out the same tired argument that your imagined deity somehow trumps the atheist claim.

    How about you actually address the questions BEFORE we stop talking about it. Avoiding much? Resume ducking - with obfuscation.

    The questions haven't been ducked Dan. Instead, the premises used to formulate the questions have been shown to be flawed and instead of working out the kinks you merely claim that non-presuppers are refusing to answer these questions because we can't.

    >>What definition of science are you using and which part of it allows that Cohen's remarks are taken as a base assumption?

    The definition that conforms to reality. Are definitions of terms, merely subjective? Postmodern much?

    More drivel. You know full well that words can have multiple definitions and that concepts such as 'modern science' are even harder to reduce down to soundbites. You claimed that 'modern science' teaches there should be no restrictions on experimentation and yet the scientific method (used by modern science no less) requires that evidence is observable, empirical and measurable (preferably reproducible in controlled conditions too) - are these not restrictions now? If anyone is being subjective in their definitions here it's you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan, the middle part of my response to you seems to have fallen into blogspots black hole. Can you restore it or should I repost my whole response to include the missing part? Damn, I hate the crappy length restrictions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan +†+ said...

    FD,

    >>More fantastic claims that they singularly fail to demonstrate, lol.

    More ducking - with obfuscation. lol.

    Refreshingly honest as to the intent of your response Dan, thank you ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just out of interest Dan, have you heard of paraconsistent logic?

    In them, the law of non-contradiction doesn't necessarily hold.

    You might also want to check out the entry on dialetheism.

    I'm not arguing for the truth of these positions by the way just asking whether you have a way of refuting them to continue your claim of 'absolute laws of logic'.

    ReplyDelete
  23. DormantDragon,

    I like you but you're dangerous, mainly because you say things quite well in a calm and, what appears on the surface to be, a well thought out way. You have game. Its just a dangerous game you play here. I believe you're convinced that your right. Sad. I just want to point out something. On the surface, it appears that your reasoning is sound, but it isn't.

    >>There's no absolute linguistic law that says you can't misspell words or use poor grammar - except for the practical consideration that people might not understand what you're saying if you do so.

    OK so, according to you, there is no law that says you MUST make sense of things. So contradictions are then allowed. That gravity will continue to be at a constant but that is only because it has been so far. There is no law that says the laws of nature must be adhered to a constant and might change any day now. So science is thus worthless. Because the nature of order that science depends on is not necessary constant and dependable.

    So, in the future, I don't HAVE to follow any rules or laws to make sense. I could answer your next question with "asdfa asfwetgwer oas nnkopjk0p9" and that will be perfectly fine with you. Right?

    The point is this. IF you want to make SENSE of things then the laws must be followed and depended on. IF you want to make sense of the ORDER of the universe you MUST look at the laws that nature follows. Much the same as the laws of our language is followed to make sense of anything. If you wish to be logical then you MUST follow the laws of logic to get a solid outcome. Here is my first question, how do you account for those laws? Now that you fully admit that they are not necessary constant. Gravity, like the noun Google, may change someday. On what assumption do you believe that they will not change. Is it possible that “A” CAN BE both “A” and “not A” someday?

    As you can plainly see, you have no basis for assuming that your reasoning is valid, yet you make that assumption.

    Also, you even started off with this,

    >>Dan, your problem appears to be that you think every description of the way things are must be prescriptive, because you believe your god intended everything to be as it is.

    Now, by saying that I have "a problem" itself invokes a STANDARD that you just spent explaining does not exist. So your own reasoning is reduced to the absurd. You CANNOT invoke a logical standard while trying to explain that standard does not exist. But I suppose that, in your world laws don't exist, contradictions exist, and whatever I say is logical and a sound argument. So thanks for admitting to that. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Freddies Dead,

    >>So you do believe that reality conforms to logic then?

    You only think that because you believe that they are separate. Reality, itself, has and holds laws. That those laws are observed yes. But they are counted, and depended, on to make any sense of things. If you are claiming that laws are descriptive, then they are changeable. So contradictions are allowed!!!

    >>Does that thing conform to the language we have? Or do we adapt the language (add new words) to describe the new 'thing'? Hint: it's not the first options ;-)

    I agree our language describes the reality what we are pointing to. But how can one possible ever speak to someone like you that PLAYS A SHELL GAME all the time? If we ask you to account for reality of the thing we call 'laws of nature' or 'order' you just go to the default of "that is merely language". You are playing a shell game.

    How do you account for the reality of the thing we call 'laws of nature' or the 'order of the universe' using the "current" language that we both use and understand?

    Something tells me you will not address the actual question ever. Prove me wrong. Resume ducking - with obfuscation

    >>there is language to describe prescriptive processes but that language itself is not prescriptive, it merely describes the process in question.

    Fine, now address the questions. How do you account for the prescriptiveness of the universe from your worldview? What is driving the prescriptiveness of said universe?

    >>The law of non-contradiction is actually an appeal to ignorance - we have never seen A be not A at the same time and in the same way so it must be true of all things

    Why MUST BE? You have no basis for assuming that your reasoning is valid, yet you make that assumption.

    >>Note that the moment you add context and/or time to your example the law ceases to be absolute and is, instead, systemic.

    Help me understand that better. Flesh this one out for me please. When an absolute law is applied, its no longer absolute? Call me dumb if you wish, but that doesn't make sense. Also, do you believe that 'absolute' and 'systemic' are polar opposite terms?

    >>Show where Van Til backs up his claims, he doesn't, he makes the claim and then, when called on it, he simply asks the non-believer to support his own position first (fallaciously shifting the burden of proof).

    Another bare assertion. All Van Til's position are fleshed out and backed up logically. They are not bare. The process, to ask for you to support you position, is to show you that when done, it becomes absurd and illogical. Its to HELP YOU understand you and your worldview. Its to help make sense of your reasoning. He, we, are attempting to aid you find a firm foundation for your reasoning. Van Til does a wonderful job explaining himself.

    >>I hate the crappy length restrictions.

    Amen brother. Preaching to the choir now. Just remember that repeating is not necessary. ALL comments marked as spam will, eventually by me, be visible. All email do go through.

    >>Refreshingly honest as to the intent of your response Dan, thank you ;-)

    Doh!

    >>I'm not arguing for the truth of these positions..

    So then you ARE arguing for the truth of these positions... (If contradictions are allowed that is)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan, you wrote,

    OK so, according to you, there is no law that says you MUST make sense of things. So contradictions are then allowed. That gravity will continue to be at a constant but that is only because it has been so far. There is no law that says the laws of nature must be adhered to a constant and might change any day now. So science is thus worthless. Because the nature of order that science depends on is not necessary constant and dependable.

    That's pretty much right, except that nature always is observed to behave in the way it does. That is why the laws of physics are established as such - they have never yet been observed to be otherwise, and as such, we have no reason for supposing they will just randomly change.

    You, on the other hand, do have a reason for assuming these laws could randomly change. Your supernatural deity, as you imagine him, can intervene at will in the natural order. What possible reason do you have for thinking that he won't?

    So, in the future, I don't HAVE to follow any rules or laws to make sense. I could answer your next question with "asdfa asfwetgwer oas nnkopjk0p9" and that will be perfectly fine with you. Right?

    I think you're missing the point here. You could, of course, choose to answer with complete gobbledegook, if you so desire. It might even make sense to you. However, if your wish is to be intelligible to others, you need to allow for the fact that they can't see inside your head, and that you have to elucidate your meaning in such a way that they can understand it. This isn't a hard and fast rule - it's a purely practical consideration. As people's collective understanding changes, so do our methods of communicating. It ain't set in stone.

    The point is this. IF you want to make SENSE of things then the laws must be followed and depended on. IF you want to make sense of the ORDER of the universe you MUST look at the laws that nature follows. Much the same as the laws of our language is followed to make sense of anything. If you wish to be logical then you MUST follow the laws of logic to get a solid outcome. Here is my first question, how do you account for those laws? Now that you fully admit that they are not necessary constant. Gravity, like the noun Google, may change someday. On what assumption do you believe that they will not change. Is it possible that “A” CAN BE both “A” and “not A” someday?

    I wondered how long it would take for you to trot out your "how do you account for laws" spiel. You talk about 'following' laws, but again I think you're missing the point. If I fall from a height and plummet towards the ground, am I 'obeying' the law of gravity? Our knowledge of the world is provisional, always subject to change. Yet we cannot operate in this way. We have to make a few basic assumptions, and these assumptions are based on what we generally observe to be the case. The Aztecs sacrificed a still-beating human heart to their sun god every day because they thought the sun wouldn't rise without their doing so. I wonder how long it took them to realise that the sun still rose without such violent propitiation?

    As you can plainly see, you have no basis for assuming that your reasoning is valid, yet you make that assumption.

    No basis at all, except that it works and that for all intents and purposes, accords with reality as we observe it to be.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan you said, "So contradictions are allowed!!!

    I already pointed out that your god you claim is supported by the universal, absolute, etc laws of logic you assume there is yet he is a contradiction to what you say supports him. I also said a lot more in previous post. I mentioned how radioactivity and virtual particle are things that are not considered to have a cause, thus refuting your claim that Cause and Effect accepted as a universal truth. I also pointed out that the particle/wave duality which has be observed contradicts those absolute laws you like to hold up high.

    I've given you more than enough time to respond to these points and others I made on several previous posts, but like I've seen you do to others here, you just skip over them and move on to spouting the same nonsense in a different way. Its very tell Dan, and after several years of the same show from you, I believe you know you have no argument but hope we'll go away if you keep shouting the same failed logic until your blue in the face.

    Dan, remember to take a deep breath in between sentences.

    Good luck

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  27. >>How do you account for the reality of the thing we call 'laws of nature' or the 'order of the universe' using the "current" language that we both use and understand?<<

    I looked up 'natural laws in wiki,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law


    I'm left pretty confused...
    (I suck, I know)

    What is a/are 'natural laws'to ypu?

    Is Law of momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum)
    a natural law you speak/type of ?


    'Order of the universe' is personal philosophy held by some people.

    Some people use this as a bases for a 'god of (fake) gaps' faith

    ReplyDelete
  28. Now, by saying that I have "a problem" itself invokes a STANDARD that you just spent explaining does not exist. So your own reasoning is reduced to the absurd. You CANNOT invoke a logical standard while trying to explain that standard does not exist. But I suppose that, in your world laws don't exist, contradictions exist, and whatever I say is logical and a sound argument. So thanks for admitting to that. :7)

    Again, Dan, I think you're missing the point.

    I invoked no standard in acknowledging that you have a problem communicating with Freddie and other commenters on this post - at least not a 'standard' in the way you seem to understand the term.

    Your confusion is quite evident - you don't have a clear grasp of the difference between laws that are formulated based on the reality of nature that we observe, and laws that are set out by conscious beings in an effort to influence the behaviour of other conscious beings. To your way of thinking, these appear to be one and the same. As to my thinking that 'laws' do not exist, I made no such claim. My claim was not that nature and natural beings do not have characteristic ways of behaving or limits that constrain such behaviour, but that these ways and limits were preordained by any conscious being of the kind you call 'god'.

    By the same token, my 'standard' in affirming this problem is purely practical and based on observation. I didn't simply decide, before the fact, that I was going to assume you had a problem in this regard. Had you demonstrated that you understood the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive laws and the different context in which we thus apply the word 'law', no problem would have been evident.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That should have been, "...were not preordained by any conscious being of the kind you call 'god'."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Or, to put it slightly more precisely, we have no reason to suppose that characteristic behaviours of nature were predesigned, simply because they apparently exist. By assuming so, Dan, you are making a leap that is unsupported by any evidence or any sound chain of reasoning.

    Taking up the language analogy again, do you suppose that the rules of language existed before language itself? Or did they grow out of the development and use of language, and our observations of what worked as clear communication and what didn't?

    The claim you are making about the universe being predesigned is of the same kind, but greater magnitude. You are claiming, essentially, that the ways in which matter and energy behave, in all their manifestations, were entirely thought out before matter and energy even existed. That is, indeed, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, Dan, of which you have thus far presented none.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan, you've been spending so much time babbling on about this and its become a big mess of ideas you've unraveled in what you seem to think make sense. All of this is unnecessary though lets clear the slate and start where others and I already showed your claim falls apart.

    Dan, You must first assume logic before you can assume your god since you need the logic before you can apply it to determine your god. You then assume a god who contridicts the absolute laws you speak of thus refuting your claim htey are absolute.

    I assume logic is reliable only due to observation of its reliability. Though I assume it to be reliable, logic it and any knowledge acquired applying this logic, is constantly under check to reconfirm them. I operate under the impression that my knowledge is never complete, my abilities are limited and all I have learned is tentative & open to change as knew data is presented. I see no reason that my world view cannot function successfully.

    Dan, please explain why you see it would fall apart and how your self refuting world view doesn't.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dormant Dragon,

    >>You, on the other hand, do have a reason for assuming these laws could randomly change.

    They won't because God tells us so. (Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3)

    >>Your supernatural deity, as you imagine him, can intervene at will in the natural order.

    There is NO ORDER in your worldview, as you just explained. What you claim is "natural order" is borrowing from my worldview. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

    >>What possible reason do you have for thinking that he won't?

    Again, revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Atomic Gimi,

    >>I've given you more than enough time to respond to these points and others I made on several previous posts, but like I've seen you do to others here, you just skip over them and move on to spouting the same nonsense in a different way.

    Maybe its because you are using many names, and thus getting confused, but I have addressed these points.

    Its more likely that its because I already addressed it through your sock puppet.

    Gimi, remember to take a deep breath before accusing me, without support for your claim. Your bare assertions are making people blush. Maybe I should barely insert my foot into your...

    Breath.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Oh, one more thing, Dan - sorry to bombard you with comments, but this one, I felt, was quite important - if, as I and many (even most) other naturalists assume, the human mind is a product of the natural universe, does it not seem reasonable to suppose that our senses and thinking abilities would be calibrated to operate within the constraints of this universe?

    This might seem like viciously circular reasoning to you, but if you think it through, what need have we to consult any extra-universal entity(even if such was theoretically possible)? Surely it is for us to understand the universe of which we are a part, rather than think we have an inside track to knowledge that comes from beyond that which may be observed to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Atomic Gimi and now DormantDragon,

    >>I assume logic is reliable only due to observation of its reliability...I see no reason that my world view cannot function successfully.

    Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.

    >>Dan, please explain why you see it would fall apart and how your self refuting world view doesn't.

    Cause you can't perceive a universal truth, cannot justify the validity of your senses, reasoning, and memory about the truth which you cannot perceive, and you have no basis for assuming that the universal truth you cannot perceive is invariant.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There is NO ORDER in your worldview, as you just explained. What you claim is "natural order" is borrowing from my worldview. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

    More bombardment is necessary, I see.

    "Borrowing from my worldview" is another of your favourite phrases, Dan, but ultimately it's meaningless if your worldview holds. If so, you have no reason to assume your god is not fooling you, giving you false revelations, or will not randomly intervene to change the natural universe.

    The only possible way you could know that your god was not doing such things is by trusting your senses and your reasoning ability, to find out if reality matches your suppositions - or your god's 'revelations'. However, if you in turn think that your senses and reason are granted by your god, you are back to square one - he could just be pulling the wool over your eyes and having a big joke at your expense, and you would have no way of knowing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cause you can't perceive a universal truth, cannot justify the validity of your senses, reasoning, and memory about the truth which you cannot perceive, and you have no basis for assuming that the universal truth you cannot perceive is invariant.

    Why can't we justify the validity of our senses, reasoning and memory in relation to this universe if they are products of this universe? You didn't address that question, Dan.

    Sure we have reason to suppose that certain things hold true within this universe - for the reason that they have never been observed to do otherwise, and as such, we have no reason for thinking that they suddenly will do otherwise. I presume that you are here referring to physical laws, as opposed to concepts of human philosophy, which are far more changeable.

    If we make predictions based on previous observations, and those predictions are then observed to be correct, why should we not trust that our senses and reasoning are just as sound as we need them to be? On the other hand, if I seriously thought there was a god behind all this - especially if it's the violent, vengeful, capricious and genocidal god presented in the bible - then I wouldn't trust my senses and reasoning as far as I could spit, because I'd never know when the 'rules' might be changed out from under me.

    It is, however, in the nature of mammals in general, and especially humans, to be inquisitive about the world, and to experiment, and to ask "what if?" The longer a perceived aspect of reality holds up to such probing and testing, the more sure we can be that we have the right of it.

    I don't think you can apply such processes to your god's 'revelations', Dan. Aren't there prohibitions on putting your god to the test?

    ReplyDelete
  38. You might well ask, Dan, why I might believe I have any more solid basis for supposing my senses and reasoning to be valid within my naturalistic worldview than you have with your supernaturalist worldview.

    Getting back to the notion that if your god is responsible for endowing you with your senses and reason, you have no other basis upon which to trust them than your god's say-so, why could the same not be said for my view? Why should I trust that my senses and reason are valid within this universe, given that they evolved within this universe?

    Well, there's actually a simple answer to that. The universe is not a conscious entity. It has no agenda, no reason for being that we can discern - it just is. As a conscious being within this universe, I can observe nature on its own terms, without supposing it has any intention of deceiving me.

    Your god, by contrast, is conceived of as a conscious entity, and as such - as also portrayed in the bible - he exhibits the characteristics of consious beings. He has feelings, desires and intentions. He has an agenda.

    One might be forgiven for supposing that this god's agenda is important to him, and that he would do what was necessary to achieve his ends - for an omnipotent, omniscient god, that could be anything. Oh, you might say, but there are some things god just wouldn't do. But why would you imagine that, unless your god is constrained by moral rules that stand above him - something that your worldview holds to be impossible, since you take your god to be the source of everything that exists.

    So, to reiterate my point - you, as a natural human being restricted to sensing, thinking, reasoning and acting in this universe, would have absolutely no way of discerning whether an all-powerful god, who is not bound by any universal constraint, was revealing truths or being deceitful. You can, if you choose, always fall back on blind faith, but don't insult the intelligence of anyone else here by pretending that you have more than that.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan you said, “Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid…

    You seem to have missed the part that you need to assume your reasoning is reliable and valid before you can even begin to use it to reason your god exists. No matter how many times you say it Dan, you have to start the same place we do.

    I can’t understand why you can’t seem to get the idea of the ‘Laws of Logic’ being descriptive. You keep skipping over the evidence I shared that there are things that we currently consider to have no cause and things that appear to contradict logic. You act as if they never were offered to you. Either the logic we use is not absolute or our perception of what are the correct limitations of the universe/reality is wrong. This does not come as a surprise to someone who understands logic as a description based on our perception. Either way Dan, if your claim of absolutes is to stand, you need to resolve these issues. You can’t keep ignoring the elephant in the room.

    ” Cause you can't perceive a universal truth…”

    Again Dan, don’t put words in my mouth. I never claimed there is or cannot be a universal truth or absolute logic.

    ”You… cannot justify the validity of your senses, reasoning, …”

    Neither can you as I mention in the beginning of this post. You can’t escape from starting at square one like the rest of us Dan. Unlike you though, I rely on keeping what I conclude from my senses and the reasoning I apply constantly in check. My world view is tentative and open to adjustment based on new data, education, experiences etc..etc… Though it might not be absolutely correct, it’s the best anyone should expect of themselves since we do not have absolute knowledge and our human abilities/mind do have their limits. You on the other hand seem to be happy with basing you world view on the Bronze Age mentality of sheep herders who though PI was 3, stripped goats using sticks of poplar, almond or plane trees, and beating you slaves the point they do not die until a few days, was permissible.

    Dan, if the pretzel logic you use to shield and protect your world view helps you sleep well at night that’s great, but don’t expect those of us who’s world view is always a work in progress to not point out the elephants in your world view. I’m not claiming who’s world view in the end is right or wrong, that we may never know. I’m just pointing where your argument to support yours fails Dan.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Atomic Chimp is quite right in pointing out that you have yourself failed to account for logic, Dan.

    An atheistic, naturalistic worldview takes logic to be the formulation by human minds of valid reasoning processes, based upon observations of how the world works, and how patterns such as cause and effect are played out.

    We have no reason to expect patterns and regularity in nature - except the fact that we generally find them. We have no reason to expect our actions to have consequences - except the fact that we generally find that they do.

    Indeed, it has been shown by the cognitive sciences that human brains are actually very adept at recognising patterns. We're particularly attuned to the pattern of features that makes up a face, so much so that we'll see faces in things that don't actually have them - like the man in the moon, or the Virgin Mary in the toastie.

    Our thinking, if it is to be considered sound in the context of this universe, must follow the order we observe in the world outside our minds. That is the source of human logic. The formulation of logical rules did not, in this estimation, precede the order of the natural universe, but arose from it.

    Allow me to reiterate Atomic Chimp's request - if you can explain why the assumption of your god's existence is more properly foundational than, say, assuming that the things we see with our eyes and feel with our bodies actually exist, or how you even can assume your god's existence without first resorting to your senses and reasoning (however brutalised the latter has been by your religious indoctrination), I will be singularly impressed.

    Remember, Dan - show, don't tell...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dan +†+ said...

    Freddies Dead,

    >>So you do believe that reality conforms to logic then?

    You only think that because you believe that they are separate.

    I was asking you to clarify your position Dan. I fully recognise that they aren't completely separate - one describes the other. But that description is based on the finite observations of mankind so it cannot be used as a prescription for how reality itself behaves.

    Reality, itself, has and holds laws. That those laws are observed yes. But they are counted, and depended, on to make any sense of things.

    No Dan, reality just is. We describe what we see, we call the processes that repeat consistently 'laws' and we expect them to hold because we don't experience them not holding.

    If you are claiming that laws are descriptive, then they are changeable.

    I said our understanding may change and we may find the law doesn't apply as universally as we once thought Dan. The law may remain 'as is' in it's specific context but we look for new descriptions to help us understand when the original description no longer describes adequately - think Newton's 'laws' of motion being expanded upon by Einstein's theory of special relativity.

    So contradictions are allowed!!!

    Are they contradictions or merely different situations that require different explanations?

    >>Does that thing conform to the language we have? Or do we adapt the language (add new words) to describe the new 'thing'? Hint: it's not the first options ;-)

    I agree our language describes the reality what we are pointing to. But how can one possible ever speak to someone like you that PLAYS A SHELL GAME all the time? If we ask you to account for reality of the thing we call 'laws of nature' or 'order' you just go to the default of "that is merely language". You are playing a shell game.

    I am being consistent Dan - the description is NOT the thing it describes. It's you that switches from descriptive to prescriptive when you feel it suits your argument as you are doing here when you insist laws are prescriptive before conceding that language is descriptive of reality and doesn't affect it.

    How do you account for the reality of the thing we call 'laws of nature' or the 'order of the universe' using the "current" language that we both use and understand?

    Something tells me you will not address the actual question ever. Prove me wrong. Resume ducking - with obfuscation


    And back to the presupp. You ask a question that I suspect isn't valid. What makes you think that reality requires 'accounting for'? Why do I have to account for reality when your position is you do not have to 'account for' God? If I were to make any attempt to answer the question it would probably be the same as your accounting for your God Dan - reality just is.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  45. cont'd...

    >>there is language to describe prescriptive processes but that language itself is not prescriptive, it merely describes the process in question.

    Fine, now address the questions. How do you account for the prescriptiveness of the universe from your worldview?

    As I've mentioned above I don't 'account for it' - it is how it is. Note, Dan, that you will most likely give the same answer if asked to 'account for' the nature of your God. I don't see how the answer helps your argument - other than you saying "That's great, then it's OK for me to say God just is then" - which it is, but you still won't have demonstrated that He exists whereas we all experience reality directly so to deny its existence is pretty much self-defeating.

    What is driving the prescriptiveness of said universe?

    As far as I can tell ... nothing. What drives God's nature Dan?

    >>The law of non-contradiction is actually an appeal to ignorance - we have never seen A be not A at the same time and in the same way so it must be true of all things

    Why MUST BE? You have no basis for assuming that your reasoning is valid, yet you make that assumption.

    I haven't made the assumption Dan - I was explaining how the LNC seems to be formulated. It's why I'm unsure that the LNC is absolute, as you claim it to be. If you have a proof that the LNC is indeed absolute can you please present it.

    >>Note that the moment you add context and/or time to your example the law ceases to be absolute and is, instead, systemic.

    Help me understand that better. Flesh this one out for me please. When an absolute law is applied, its no longer absolute?

    My point was really "can you first demonstrate the law is absolute, in principle?" i.e. give a proof for NOT(P AND NOT P) - there is, after all, some debate over whether it's possible to either verify or falsify the LNC. I have a feeling that during any attempt to prove the principle you will resort to an example (as Aristotle did) at which point you would simply reveal the seemingly systemic nature of logic.

    Call me dumb if you wish, but that doesn't make sense. Also, do you believe that 'absolute' and 'systemic' are polar opposite terms?

    No, but this is relevant how? The point is simply to demonstrate that logic doesn't appear to be, as you claim, absolute. Instead, it holds (tentatively) within the current system and may need to be revised based on more experience.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  46. cont'd...

    >>Show where Van Til backs up his claims, he doesn't, he makes the claim and then, when called on it, he simply asks the non-believer to support his own position first (fallaciously shifting the burden of proof).

    Another bare assertion.

    I note you have ignored the part where I mentioned BB's blog as a source to back up my 'bare assertion' on the content of Van Til's works

    All Van Til's position are fleshed out and backed up logically. They are not bare.

    You say that but then accept my assessment in your very next sentence, albeit you think that somehow validates your position...

    The process, to ask for you to support you position, is to show you that when done, it becomes absurd and illogical. Its to HELP YOU understand you and your worldview. Its to help make sense of your reasoning. He, we, are attempting to aid you find a firm foundation for your reasoning. Van Til does a wonderful job explaining himself.

    And here we have an important point - it doesn't matter if my worldview is absurd or illogical (except to you obviously), it matters whether Van Til supports his own position, he doesn't. He asserts that his position is sound, he gives some scriptural references and a deductively valid argument (i.e. it is correctly formed) but as soon as the premises and/or assumptions are questioned there is no support for them, there's no attempt to show the argument is sound. Instead the TAG proponent goes on the attack, making claims like the 'impossibility of the contrary' and claims about a 'lack of foundation for reasoning'. You start wittering about certainty etc... when the arguments against TAG do not rest on the certitude of the people presenting them, they stand or fall on their own merits. It is up to the proponent of TAG to support their premises against the arguments against them, something that I've yet to see happen. Can you, Dan, demonstrate the existence of absolutes? So far all you've done is argue that my argument against them is wrong and that's not the same as demonstrating their existence in principle. Similarly, can you demonstrate the truth of your claim to revelation. You just claim that we're being 'intellectually dishonest' in suggesting your revelation could be bogus but you never demonstrate that your claim is, in fact, true.

    Here's a starting point for absolutes, pick one and show how it:

    i.) Exists independently (i.e. is non-contingent)
    ii.) Exists not in relation to other things (same as “i”)
    iii.) Is not relative
    iv.) Is true for every possible circumstance
    v.) Is atemporal

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dan +†+ said...

    >>I hate the crappy length restrictions.

    Amen brother. Preaching to the choir now. Just remember that repeating is not necessary. ALL comments marked as spam will, eventually by me, be visible. All email do go through.

    It doesn't register as a spam issue when I post though. I get a message saying that the 'Request-URI Too Large'. Now I know about the 4096 character limitation so I split up my posts accordingly, however, when you go over about 3000 chars you sometimes get the error I've mentioned. Usually, simply reopening the comment thread from the main page results in the post being accepted and displayed but every now and then it simply doesn't work and I'm left wondering whether I should repost or not. As a precaution I've taken to composing all posts outside of the browser and copy/pasting when I'm done to avoid losing responses and having to redo them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan +†+ said...

    >>I'm not arguing for the truth of these positions..

    So then you ARE arguing for the truth of these positions... (If contradictions are allowed that is)

    So you don't know about paraconsistent logics then. Fair enough, I'll leave you to investigate and see for yourself why that comment is wrong in this context.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Freddies Dead,

    How do you account for the prescriptiveness of the universe from your worldview?

    >>As I've mentioned above I don't 'account for it' - it is how it is.

    So you cannot make sense of the order of the universe within your worldview, and I can within mine, very simply I might add. So really, that is the whole point. You cannot makes sense of this existence that you are currently in, with your worldview. I can though. My worldview (created to worship the Creator) makes perfect sense, and makes sense why we have reason, logic, morals, and dignity, etc. That is, to know Him. Science cannot answer the Why's, and neither can your worldview.

    >>Note, Dan, that you will most likely give the same answer if asked to 'account for' the nature of your God. I don't see how the answer helps your argument - other than you saying "That's great, then it's OK for me to say God just is then" - which it is, but you still won't have demonstrated that He exists whereas we all experience reality directly so to deny its existence is pretty much self-defeating.

    The difference is that you view the universe as a random, orderless, flash into existence with no reason or purpose. So accounting for that, does not fit with our surroundings and what we know. We see order, purpose, reason for things, morality, and dignity. This is not the universe that your worldview describes. You cannot reason why you strive for good grades in school. Their is no purpose.

    Your entire worldview is fallacious. Let's see a naturalistic fallacy, coupled with Moralistic fallacy (if that is possible), an appeal to novelty, coupled with an appeal to nature. Your worldview is simply, a hot mess.

    What is driving the prescriptiveness of said universe?

    >>As far as I can tell ... nothing.

    Again, no purpose for ANYTHING? No reason for why. What kind of worldview is that? It cannot even explain, or understand, the why's of life. Its the whole purpose of why we have a worldview in the first place (concerning the nature of reality and the role of humanity within it). It cannot even address basic epistemology.

    >>What drives God's nature Dan?

    To create a creation that freely loves Him. To not be alone is my guess, based on Genesis 2:18.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Science cannot answer the Why's, and neither can your worldview."

    Dan brings back his fake gap for his god to fill.

    yawn!


    "We see order, purpose, reason for things, morality, and dignity."

    Anthropomorphism! caused by brain chemistry

    If God is real, how would he account for ANYTHING within his worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  51. The difference is that you view the universe as a random, orderless, flash into existence with no reason or purpose. So accounting for that, does not fit with our surroundings and what we know. We see order, purpose, reason for things, morality, and dignity. This is not the universe that your worldview describes. You cannot reason why you strive for good grades in school. Their is no purpose.

    Your entire worldview is fallacious. Let's see a naturalistic fallacy, coupled with Moralistic fallacy (if that is possible), an appeal to novelty, coupled with an appeal to nature. Your worldview is simply, a hot mess.


    Strawman, strawman, strawman...oh, and then you throw in another strawman for good measure.

    The human brain recognises patterns in the natural universe. The patterns are, for all intents and purposes, part of the natural universe. Do they need a reason for being? No. They can just be, because they are, and we as conscious beings can get on with the business of living our lives and learning about our world and how to effect the outcomes we need and desire.

    Are you seriously asking us to believe, Dan, that your world would crumble to dust if you didn't imagine that your god had some overarching purpose for it all? That you'd stop pursuing the things that interested you? Stop loving and educating your children? That you'd go on a murderous, ravaging odyssey of destruction just because you could?

    Nope. Didn't think so.

    You're getting confused again, this time between universal, transcendent purpose, of which we can discern none, and temporal purpose, which we can create for ourselves.

    Incidentally, you can find a lucid, concise and elegantly simple demolition of the presuppositionalist position here.

    ReplyDelete
  52. By the way, Dan, the naturalistic fallacy isn't what you think it is - it's not the "fallacy of naturalism", but the fallacy of supposing that just because something occurs in nature, it's morally good. This is clearly not the case, since nature is amoral and indifferent to the sufferings or wellbeing of sentient beings. Hence the fallacy part.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Yet again Dan, you just act like I never pointed out the fact you start where we do, and continue on make more assumptions than we do. The fact you keep just pretending the elephants I keep pointing at aren't in your world view Dan Doesn't mean they aren't and make you unsupported assertions correct.

    Also Dan, you keep setting up a strawman by trying to tell us what we see the world/universe at though we continue to correct you.

    No matter if the universe is complete chaos or complete order, as I already mentioned my world view is based on observation, testing, drawing conclusions and constantly retesting, so I see the universe as it it to the best of my abilities. If new data is found, I better my education or tests produce different result on some occasions,I update my world view.

    Please expalin how there is any issue with that. Please do not babble about how I have no reason to trust my senses or my ability to reason, you have to trust both of those too Dan before you can even begin to draw any conclusions about your god.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dan +†+ said...

    Freddies Dead,

    How do you account for the prescriptiveness of the universe from your worldview?


    >>As I've mentioned above I don't 'account for it' - it is how it is.

    So you cannot make sense of the order of the universe within your worldview, and I can within mine, very simply I might add.

    So the inability to discern a divine purpose means I can't make sense of anything? Lol, that's a brilliant leap - the gold in 2012 is surely yours. And I suppose anything is simple if you just imagine an omnimax God to explain it. Doesn't make it right of course.

    So really, that is the whole point. You cannot makes sense of this existence that you are currently in, with your worldview. I can though. My worldview (created to worship the Creator) makes perfect sense, and makes sense why we have reason, logic, morals, and dignity, etc. That is, to know Him. Science cannot answer the Why's, and neither can your worldview.

    Repetition does not make it so either. Also you've just imagined the God that 'accounts for' your worldview, you cannot 'account for' this God but will ignore that and claim it's not a problem. Well, if begging the question is OK, as you admit when you fail to 'account for' your God, then I don't need to 'account for' the prescriptiveness of the universe either. Thanks for demonstrating that there's nothing more wrong with my worldview than your own Dan.

    >>Note, Dan, that you will most likely give the same answer if asked to 'account for' the nature of your God. I don't see how the answer helps your argument - other than you saying "That's great, then it's OK for me to say God just is then" - which it is, but you still won't have demonstrated that He exists whereas we all experience reality directly so to deny its existence is pretty much self-defeating.

    The difference is that you view the universe as a random, orderless, flash into existence with no reason or purpose.

    I notice you make no attempt to 'account for' your God or His nature, why is that Dan? Also you are incorrect, I see the order just as much as you do, it's just that I'm happy to wait and see if we find evidence as to why it's ordered instead of making up a deity I also can't 'account for' in order to 'account for' that order and give it a purpose.

    So accounting for that, does not fit with our surroundings and what we know. We see order, purpose, reason for things, morality, and dignity.

    No Dan, we see order and we ascribe a purpose to it. Have you moved on to claiming morality is absolute now as well? Can you give us an example of an absolute moral Dan? You've failed at every other absolute you've been asked about so this should be fun.

    This is not the universe that your worldview describes.

    Why should my worldview describe a universe you've made up? lol.

    You cannot reason why you strive for good grades in school. Their is no purpose.

    To get a good job. There, getting good grades now has a purpose. Just because it's not to glorify God doesn't make it invalid Dan.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  55. cont'd...

    Your entire worldview is fallacious.

    Because I fail to 'account for' something you demand I 'account for' without demonstrating that I need to? Maybe if you 'accounted for' your God you'd have a point.

    Let's see a naturalistic fallacy,

    Why would you want to see a naturalistic fallacy? Oops, sorry, you're accusing me of committing one - as DD points out ... nope, my worldview doesn't advocate that what 'is' is also what 'ought to be'.

    coupled with Moralistic fallacy (if that is possible),

    ROFL, now you're accusing me of doing the exact opposite of the naturalistic fallacy i.e. What 'ought to be' is what 'is'. Maybe you should do a little research before making contradictory accusations.

    an appeal to novelty,

    Which new idea have I claimed is superior just because it's new?

    coupled with an appeal to nature.

    I also haven't claimed anything is 'right' or 'good' because it's natural. You really love to throw around accusations of fallacies without demonstrating where they've been committed Dan, it's so cute.

    Your worldview is simply, a hot mess.

    Pot, kettle, black.

    What is driving the prescriptiveness of said universe?

    >>As far as I can tell ... nothing.

    Again, no purpose for ANYTHING?

    Lol, none imported by some imagined deity, no. We are quite capable of creating our own purpose.

    No reason for why.

    Why what?

    What kind of worldview is that?

    One that seems to comport with reality as we experience it *shrugs*

    It cannot even explain, or understand, the why's of life.

    What 'whys'? And why is a worldview's current inability to answer said 'whys' an indicator that it's necessarily invalid? It could just be that we haven't experienced what we need to in order to make sense of the questions yet.

    Its the whole purpose of why we have a worldview in the first place (concerning the nature of reality and the role of humanity within it).

    So you say. Just answering every why with 'God' makes no sense of the universe and our role within it any more than being honest and saying 'I don't know' does. At least with my worldview there's the opportunity to learn the answers to those whys, whereas you have to deny any new experience which conflicts with your imagined deity.

    It cannot even address basic epistemology.

    According to your strict definition of course, which automatically requires the deity you have imagined. Yet you can't 'account for' this God, demonstrate that He exists, or even explain how that helps you 'know' anything ... you simply beg the question with your 'revelation'.

    >>What drives God's nature Dan?

    To create a creation that freely loves Him. To not be alone is my guess, based on Genesis 2:18.

    So omnimax God is lonely now? So much for perfect. And the only way to freely love God would require us to be able to do something that either a) contradicts his will and/or b) is something he doesn't already know will happen, so that takes care of omnipotence and/or omniscience - why do you insist on calling this entity God, Dan? I'm beginning to think you should pick some other imagined deity as yours doesn't seem to fit with your worldview ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Atomic Gimi,

    >>as I already mentioned my world view is based on observation, testing, drawing conclusions and constantly retesting, so I see the universe as it it to the best of my abilities. If new data is found, I better my education or tests produce different result on some occasions,I update my world view.

    >>Please expalin how there is any issue with that.

    I will try to speak slowly to help you understand the question. :7)

    And how are you certain that this worldview is the right one? You see, you had to presuppose that this worldview was right for you. Again, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  57. AG,

    Again, on what presuppositions lead you to believe "observation, testing, drawing conclusions and constantly retesting, so you see the universe as it is to the best of your abilities" was the proper way to view things?

    Without "standards" or "ultimate authority", as your worldview states, you cannot come to these conclusions as being "proper" or "right". So how do you know that your reasoning is valid, without being viciously circular?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Someone explain to the willfully ignorant blog owner here that faith != presupposition

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dan Said,"And how are you certain that this worldview is the right one? You see, you had to presuppose that this worldview was right for you. Again, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?"

    I'm as certain as humanly possible based on the things I mentioned you wrote this response to.

    Dan, How are you certain your ability of logic and perception are valid? Now don't try the god claim, sincer according to the order they follow and your view, you must be able to be absolutely certain of them before you can even apply your perception/reasoning to conclude your god. So, Dan, How can you be absolutely sure you can trust them & be sure your conclusion is not a delusion, mistake, mis-perception etc..etc...

    "what presuppositions lead you to believe "observation, testing, drawing conclusions and constantly retesting, so you see the universe as it is to the best of your abilities" was the proper way to view things?"

    Same as the one you use to trust yours to make your god assumption. Dan, can you wrap your mind around the fact that you & I both start in the same point. You cannot just skip over them and start at your god, nor because you conclude a god thinking that it makes the need to justify them null and void. If you do Dan you logic is more than circular, its weaving loops inside of loops. Maybe we need a new term like spherical or binary orbital logic.

    Dan,You seem to abandon those facts completely and think your god is your square one since its the first think you consciously think about. Can explain how you concluded your god is the starting point without using you mind/perception?

    Also you still need to justify what laws of logic using which set of axioms, you apply to your god as being correct and more reliable than the others. Dan, there are different schools of though. Some forms of logic rejected the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction. Which is correct and why? Is only one correct, or are each correct depending on the situation its applied to?

    Dan, I answer your questions so please answer my question you keep avoiding instead of just repeating yourself over and over. You have many issues you need to clear but have failed/avoided doing so.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  60. Atomic Gimi,

    >>Dan, can you wrap your mind around the fact that you & I both start in the same point.

    Yes, God exists.

    >>You cannot just skip over them and start at your god, nor because you conclude a god thinking that it makes the need to justify them null and void.

    You cannot just skip over the fact of presupposing God, because you conclude a no God needed thinking it makes the need to justify them all the more.

    >>Dan, there are different schools of though.

    Here I thought though was from one school. :7) Quite a telling Freudian though.

    >> Some forms of logic rejected the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction.

    Finally, you admit that all forms of logic do not reject the law of contradiction! Thanks! Now we are getting somewhere.

    >>Which is correct and why?

    Certainly not yours, if you believe "self" is ultimate authority that is. I am glad that you don't, and you do believe in God as ultimate authority.

    Atomic Gimi, I answered your questions so please answer my question you keep avoiding instead of just repeating yourself over and over. You have many issues you need to clear but have failed/avoided doing so. The question again is, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ~Dan

    ReplyDelete
  61. Dan, I actually thought you were interested in an intelligent discussion but when valid questions are asked of you concerning your claim, you just keep avoiding providing an answer, or pretending not to understand or see them.

    Now you're stooped to very immature responses along. Not surprising though since I've seen you do the same to others many times in the past.

    I've answered your questions repeatedly yet you have not offered anything to refute them. All you do is keep making unsupported assertions. I on the other hand have offered many examples that, show how flawed and self refuting your claim is.

    You're argument might be flawed Dan, but I've never claimed whose world view is right or wrong Dan. I'm honest enough to recognize and admit that the human mind is not 100% reliable and my knowledge is limited. You seem to think my claim to uncertainty is a flaw not an asset.

    Dan, all you have done here is to demonstrate that you are willfully ignorant of what you are trying to speak about and arrogant to boot.

    Dan since you're too proud to exercise and you love quotse and, I leave you these:

    Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.
    ~Einstein

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.
    ~ Will Durant

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
    ~ Albert Einstein

    If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
    ~ Matthew 15:14

    Good luck Dan, and watch your step.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  62. Atomic Gimi,

    >>I've answered your questions repeatedly yet you have not offered anything to refute them.

    I would respond with a touché to that claim. You have not, really, addressed the core issue here. The validity of your reasoning. You have no argument and then you lash out and get angry? Should we call you "Atomic Ike" (Turner) now?

    Besides, I am sure you meant " yet you have not offered anything to refute them [that I am willing to accept.]" Its OK we all omit things at times.

    >>All you do is keep making unsupported assertions.

    Is the "wrong" according to your worldview? If so, how can this, or anything, anything be universally wrong? If its subjective, then I can be right then, correct?

    >>I on the other hand have offered many examples that, show how flawed and self refuting your claim is.

    To who? You? Maybe, but should that subjectivity matter? Or did you mean universally wrong? Because you are bringing up flawed logic as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

    >>You're argument might be flawed Dan, but I've never claimed whose world view is right or wrong Dan.

    Great! I am right then. That's settled.

    >> I'm honest enough to recognize and admit that the human mind is not 100% reliable and my knowledge is limited.

    So limited, that you do not know anything.

    >>You seem to think my claim to uncertainty is a flaw not an asset.

    Not at all. Its your ONLY avenue.

    >>Dan, all you have done here is to demonstrate that you are willfully ignorant of what you are trying to speak about and arrogant to boot.

    Thanks for agreeing that I demonstrated that I am not willfully ignorant of what I am speaking about and humble to boot.

    And I leave you these:

    "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" ~2 Corinthians 10:5

    “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” ~1 Corinthians 1:18-20

    “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” ~1 Corinthians 2:14

    Got asbestos suit?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Would Mr. Corinthian like to back up those bare assertions? :7

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ant,

    >>Would Mr. Corinthian like to back up those bare assertions?

    Paul knew what he was saying, evidence by what he said throughout. But the real question is, how do you KNOW that they are bare assertions? You do understand that saying they are bare assertions, without evidence, is itself a bare assertion. Wheeee.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dan, I'm not angry,my patience with you has come to an end. There is only so long I can keep pointing out the elephants in your argument, only to hear you make bare assertions and pretzel logic in repose. I really have come to believe you know the issues that have been pointed to you repeatedly but refuse to let go of you claim since its so important to you.

    Though I can never prove that your world view, that you believe requires a god is wrong, that does not mean you're right. No intelligent person tried to prove a negative. I'm just speaking about your argument. Dan, You have no argument because you still have not shown support. All you have done so far is made bare assertions, and tired to use what you claim as the standard logic most apply as your evidence to support it. You have to either accept that or not. Whether my world view is right or wrong doesn't matter. plus You cannot just say that since you think my world view(WV) is absurd and decide to ignore my comments, without supporting your claim about my WV first. You never show how my WV is absurd other than the fact that by bare assertion you think it has to be since its not yours. You need to show you first understand my WV and show support for your claim about. You can just discard it. Even if you could refute my WV, since they overlap in the area of Perception and reason you still have to deal with them.

    Hypothetically speaking, let say I agree with you world view. If that were true, I still would point out the same flaws in your logic and your unsupported claims of absoutes. The issue is Dan, that the same logic you use, refutes your claim. If you are going to use the these laws and axions of logic you need to accept all of them, or your point fails. You can't just select those that you feel fit your point. Either you agree to the laws you use to support and and deal with how it refutes your statement or you have no claim.

    So Dan you have proven only the fact that

    A) you have no way to Refute my world view.

    B) You believe baseless assertions against it is good enough to let you discard anything I say.

    C) you only want to accept logic when it helps you argument. When it doesn't you avoid dealing with it by saying you don't have to listen to anyone speaking to you unless they already agree with you. Even if they are using what you claim is the logic you say supports your world view to do it.

    D) "C)" is just another way of saying that you put you fingers in your ears and say "La La La I can't hear you!" and I believe you are well aware of it.

    E) You have no concern to have an intelligent discussion at all.

    f) you have many other issues I mentioned but haven't repeated in this post that you have to deal with, but continue to ignore.

    Keep up the good work Dan! The validity of god is well illustrated by the quality of his supporters. With you as a role model for the pious, the Atheist community increases in leaps and bounds daily.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  66. >>Paul knew what he was saying, evidence by what he said throughout.

    How did Paul know, what he knew?
    Your answer: revelation/s

    How do you/anyone/everyone varify it was a revelation and not a bare assertion?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Atomic Chimp wrote the following to Dan: I really have come to believe you know the issues that have been pointed to you repeatedly but refuse to let go of you claim since its so important to you.

    Yup. Dan stopped being interested in conversation over a year ago, which is why I refuse to take anything he says seriously. He's a dialectic nihilist.

    And he knows it, too.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Besides, I am sure you meant " yet you have not offered anything to refute them [that I am willing to accept.]" Its OK we all omit things at times.

    Yet I think you're the only one here, Dan, who omits giving intelligible responses to questions. The reason your 'refutations', as you quaintly call them, are not accepted is that they're largely content-free drivel, not to put too fine a point on it.

    You've been repeatedly asked how you know your god exists and is the source of reason, logic, order, and so on, and isn't deceiving you, and you've invariably responded with the functional equivalent of, "I just do...'cause I do, and you can't tell me I don't, so just shut up, okay?" It's like you never left the second grade.

    If your god exists as you claim, then he ought to be unambiguously evident to all people, regardless of their 'worldview'. It should not be as easy as it is to write him off as an irrelevancy.

    But as - now several - other posters have pointed out, all worldviews start from the same point, and it ain't your god, because if you can't trust your own senses and reason, first of all, you can't claim to reliably perceive your god or anything else.

    Perhaps breaking it down to basics will help you to understand why this is so. We're all born with physical senses, with which we obtain information about the world we inhabit. These senses kick in well before our brains are sufficiently wired to make sense of all the information we receive.

    Our reasoning faculties are built on sensory information - how could they be otherwise? Without sensory information, it's possible we might still be able to think, but what could we think about?

    As Godlessons points out in the article I linked in a previous comment, there are reasons to trust our senses - they tend to reinforce each other, such as being able to see, smell, touch and taste the object called an apple that I am eating. It's usually when our senses give us conflicting information that we notice something amiss. It's possible to get stuck in solipsistic mode, and suppose that I am merely imagining everything that I perceive; but if nothing exists outside my mind, as Godlessons asks, what is my mind made of?

    In view of all this, and the fact that the evidentiary approach to building knowledge of the world is both self-correcting and obviously productive, perhaps you can muster your big guns and offer an explanation for how your god could possibly be a more foundational assumption upon which to construct a worldview than, say, the assumption that a real physical world exists outside of our minds.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Is the "wrong" according to your worldview? If so, how can this, or anything, anything be universally wrong? If its subjective, then I can be right then, correct?

    Why must something be universally wrong in order to be locally wrong, Dan?

    Why?

    What's wrong (given you think you have inside information on this) with something being specifically wrong at a given time in given circumstances, because of the effects it will have then and there? What makes us unequipped to make such a judgement?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hmmm...have tried three times to post a comment now, and a shorter comment got through in the interim.

    Two possibilities spring to mind - either your blog is suffering from technical issues, or you were reluctant to post a comment that effectively sliced through your presuppo guff.

    Time will tell, I guess...

    ReplyDelete
  71. I hereby recant the snarky aspersions I cast upon the integrity of Dan's comment policy. Clearly it was a technical issue that obliterated my lengthy comment - a problem solved by splitting it in two.

    How do I know this? Why, evidence from my senses and reason, of course! :)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Atomic Ike,

    >> Dan, You have no argument because you still have not shown support.

    Again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

    A) You have done that for us.

    B) You must be talking about yourself here. I will leave you two alone.

    C) "The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!" ~Sye

    D) Did you say something?

    E) Oh yea? :p I know you are, but what am I?

    F) Huh? Sorry, I nodded off there.

    >>Keep up the good work Dan!

    Thanks buddy, I don't know for certain but I am sure your encouragement is genuine. Oops missed that one.

    >>The validity of god is well illustrated by the quality of his supporters.

    Completely illogical. We all are wretched, wicked, and liars. Granted. This is the reason why we need God the most. But one has nothing to do with the other. Ignore reality, if you must. :(

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ant,

    >>How do you/anyone/everyone varify it was a revelation and not a bare assertion?

    OK dude, you are basically questioning God's ability to reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Are you saying that is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent being?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dan +†+ said...

    Ant,

    >>How do you/anyone/everyone verify it was a revelation and not a bare assertion?


    OK dude, you are basically questioning God's ability to reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Are you saying that is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent being?
    Doesn't one need proof of this being first?

    I think that he's asking how can you prove that it was something that this "omniscient, omnipotent being" gave you as opposed to something that you just pulled out of your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  75. DormantDragon,

    >>It's like you never left the second grade.

    Ahh good times. I was the one running around the room being chased by the teacher. Although, 4th grade is when I found love (with my teacher) and Ted Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever." You know, the good ol days.

    >>If your god exists as you claim, then he ought to be unambiguously evident to all people, regardless of their 'worldview'. It should not be as easy as it is to write him off as an irrelevancy.

    And Bingo was his Name-O (insert Romans 1:18-23 here) Great job!!

    >>But as - now several - other posters have pointed out, all worldviews start from the same point, and it ain't your god, because if you can't trust your own senses and reason, first of all, you can't claim to reliably perceive your god or anything else.

    Awww, you were so close for a minute. Let me ask you, can I deny your existence while being logical and have a sound worldview? If not, why not?

    P1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as being in the second grade.
    P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination that I was in the second grade.
    P3. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine that I was in the second grade.
    C. Therefore I was in second grade.
    QED

    Now, it is not at all my claim that your reasoning is faulty, I simply want to know your basis for assuming that it isn't. In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.

    >>Our reasoning faculties are built on sensory information - how could they be otherwise?

    Problem is DormantDragon, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. Also, if your reasoning is built on sensory info, how do you account for such things that are universal, abstract, and invariant? Can you see love? How about touch it? Taste it? Hear it? What does love smell like?

    >>Without sensory information, it's possible we might still be able to think, but what could we think about?

    Love for God. (big gun)

    ReplyDelete
  76. DormantDragon,

    >>I hereby recant the snarky aspersions I cast upon the integrity of Dan's comment policy.

    Thanks for that!

    >>Clearly it was a technical issue that obliterated my lengthy comment - a problem solved by splitting it in two.

    Nope, it goes through even if it says it doesn't. Much the same as atheists say they don't know God when they are merely denying their own knowledge. The "technical issue" is that it claims that something doesn't exist, when it actually does. (If it says exceeds the 4,096 limit then it has NOT gone through, otherwise it has)

    >>How do I know this? Why, evidence from my senses and reason, of course! :)

    Here is the kicker, you're wrong! Truth has NOTHING to do with your senses!

    Bawahahahahahha, I think we are through here.

    Thanks Google, for proving Atheists wrong and God right! (Although that was not intentioned, because they are evil. Same with the devil.)

    ReplyDelete
  77. Reynold,

    >>Doesn't one need proof of this being first?

    When you say proof, who's authority?

    Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."

    Remember you are the criminal in this court. You can deny the Judge, and the Laws, but that gets you nowhere

    It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    ReplyDelete
  78.      "It is the [c]hristian position that [g]od has revealed [h]imself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who [h]e is."
         No, it is not. Most christians recognize that non-christians do not believe in their god for want of evidence. They simply rely on faith rather than proof.
         "P1: "
         Stop. Before you can get to your premise, you must assume your reasoning has validity.
         "Problem is DormantDragon, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular."
         And you are doing the same thing. You have to assume your reasoning before you can bring in the god you pretend is the basis for that reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  79. He will ignore you, because he knows that to acknowledge your point is to destroy his own.

    Dance, little fundie, dance...

    ReplyDelete
  80. Now, it is not at all my claim that your reasoning is faulty, I simply want to know your basis for assuming that it isn't.

    My reasoning could very well be faulty, Dan, but the whole point is that one continues to test this against a real world that exists independently of my mind. If my reasoning lines up with external evidence that I perceive with my senses, and with information received from other people who do the same, then I can safely suppose that my reasoning is valid. The thing is, I don't just assume that my reasoning is valid without examining it. My observation regarding my disappearing comments was valid based on the evidence I had - the fact that you presented new information merely gave me a more complete picture of what was happening - it didn't invalidate my reasoning.

    In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God.

    First of all, the god you say exists is indistinguishable from a god you merely imagine. And who says that reasoning is unchangeable and universal? The people who thought that their gods were propitiated by human sacrifice? The scientists from 300 years ago who believed in phlogiston? Aristotle, with whom we credit the notion that "nature abhors a vacuum"? All of these things have been demonstrated to be wrong by being tested against real-world evidence and examined with human reason.

    Are you saying that your god was feeding everyone these lies before he decided to let them in on the truth?

    You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.

    Why do I need to account for them beyond observing that the natural world behaves in certain ways with a high degree of regularity? As I said before, if there was a mind behind all this, why the regularity? Why wouldn't your god just change stuff when he felt like it, and how would you even know that he did or did not, without first consulting your innate human faculties of physical senses and reason?

    Problem is DormantDragon, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular.

    Wrong. I test my reason against the external world, which is independent of my mind.

    Also, if your reasoning is built on sensory info, how do you account for such things that are universal, abstract, and invariant?

    You would first have to demonstrate that such things even exist, Dan, before any accounting could begin.

    Can you see love?

    No, but I can feel an emotion that we conveniently refer to as love. I'm not sure this is the same for everyone who feels it. This is one of those things that can't be tested against the external
    world, since our emotions are properties of our minds, feelings that induce us to act in certain ways. If I love someone, I tend to enjoy being in their company, and feel a strong desire to do things that make them happy. Perhaps that is after all how one 'sees' love - in the behaviour of others towards ourselves.

    How about touch it? Taste it? Hear it? What does love smell like?

    I'm sure I could give you a very detailed response to such questions, Dan, but I suspect it would be too much information for a blog such as yours...

    ReplyDelete
  81. "The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!" ~Sye

    The problem here, of course, is that without evidence, you can't assume anything at all about necessary preconditions for logic or reason or whatever. The world looks the same to us and behaves in the same way regardless of whether we think that necessary precondition is your god, or Vishnu, or Loki, or something closer to home, like our own senses. Sye's argument is nothing but an empty form of words.

    I'm pretty sure I could construct an experiment that would demonstrate the necessity of sensory information for the development of reason in humans. Good luck demonstrating any such thing with your imaginary magic man.

    The "technical issue" is that it claims that something doesn't exist, when it actually does.

    And here I have provided you with a unique opportunity to validate at least one of your claims, Dan, by posting my most recent missing comment...

    ReplyDelete
  82. Interesting that my previous comment showed up under my RL name, rather than my Google username. Got any insight to offer on this one, Dan?

    Anyhoo, I'll try to keep this one a bit shorter in the hope that it might actually appear on the post without any further wrangling.

    Dan, you wrote,

    Now, it is not at all my claim that your reasoning is faulty, I simply want to know your basis for assuming that it isn't.

    Wow. You sound like Ray Comfort claiming that he's not actually calling atheists fools - just quoting scripture.

    But I don't have to assume my reasoning is valid, Dan - I have the external world, which is independent of my mind, against which to test it.

    In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God.

    Firstly, you have imagination and man-made mythology, upon which to construct your unverifiable and unfalsifiable - and thus practically useless - worldview.

    Secondly, since when has reason been unchangeable? Humans make mistakes all the time, but because we have independent verification to fall back on, we can always update our knowledge as new information and new connections between existing facts become available to us. This is what we like to call learning, Dan. You should try it.

    You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.

    Why do they need accounting for? It's enough for our purposes and our ability to live our lives to know that such things - apparently - exist.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dan quoted Van Til's rather lame argument that,

    "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."

    Who said anything about validating authority? We're talking about verifying existence. An undetectable, impotent authority is no authority at all.

    Pity your omnipotent, omniscient magic man never bothered to tell you what the the world would be like without him, so that you could explain it to the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    >>Doesn't one need proof of this being first?


    When you say proof, who's authority?
    What's authority got to do with proof? I'm looking for something that'll convince me instead of your presup bullshit.

    Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-...
    No it isn't; it just means that we actually need evidence before we can believe that he exists, otherwise any bullshit religious person can use that same "reasoning" to avoid giving evidence for the existence THEIR god/goddess, etc

    What would you say to a muslim who just pulled that reasoning on you, Dan?

    ...in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
    That's asinine. All that would mean is that we'd need to have evidence of his existence before we could accept his "authority". Does asking a cop for his badge (or other evidence) all of a sudden negate his authority, and makes him become not a cop anymore? He'd just show the badge and then got on with tossing you in the clink.

    In other words; fuck the evidence...if people need evidence in order to believe in god, that usurps gods authority and so we won't give any evidence, nyah!

    What kind of effing idiot was this "Van Til" anyway?


    Remember you are the criminal in this court.
    Again, mere assumption without evidence. In real life, when one is in court, you can see the judge, the bailiffs, the trappings of the court system, for yourself!

    You can deny the Judge, and the Laws, but that gets you nowhere
    Read what I just said.

    It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.
    And it's the position of every other religion and those of no religion, that that is not the case.

    Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.
    Sheesh, I'm sick of that old saw. It's got to be the most arrogant claim of your faith.

    Thing is, what do you say to those of differen religions who think that about you??

    It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
    No, you idiot, it reveals our nonbelief in any god.

    How the hell can we have any dialogue if you keep misrepresenting what we believe to our very "faces", as it were?

    ReplyDelete
  85. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    Care to restate this hackneyed soundbite in your own words, Dan? That would be a nifty way to demonstrate that you actually understand what it means, and are not just naively parroting the likes of Bahnsen and Van Til.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Pvb,

    >>No, it is not. Most christians recognize that non-christians do not believe in their god for want of evidence. They simply rely on faith rather than proof.

    Fine, I can concede that some may believe this.

    >>Stop. Before you can get to your premise, you must assume your reasoning has validity.

    Not so. If I presuppose God, then His Authority is over my reasoning.

    God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning.

    Now how can you trust your senses, memory and reasoning?

    Problem is DormantDragon, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular.

    >>And you are doing the same thing.

    We have been through this already. You presuppose there is no God so they ONLY avenue you have is to conclude that everyone has the same starting point. Its just not true though. Unless you have an explanation that is justified and true, like mine.

    ReplyDelete
  87. DormantDragon,

    >>Care to restate this hackneyed soundbite in your own words, Dan?

    Not now, but I will with a verse (our Authority), Romans 1:18-23

    ReplyDelete
  88.      "If I presuppose..."
         If you presuppose anything, that is, if you try to get at any premise you are assuming the validity of your reasoning. Unless you are willing to admit that I must conclude that you believe your god and your "revelation" to be fictitious. It's simple. Just acknowledge the fact. You have to assume your reasoning before you advance your god as any kind of premise.
         "God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning."
         Someone whose senses, memory, and reasoning did not work properly could say the same thing. The alleged revelation is meaningless. Even worse, you receive this "revelation" (which you have identified as the observable world and a fictional book written by people) through your senses. You have to assume them before you can get to your "revelation."
         For all your pretense, you don't have an explanation that is justified. In fact, if your reasoning is incapable of recognizing the fact that your reasoning precedes your perception of god and your perception of revelation then it has failed catastrophically on the point. You might be able to argue for the existence of a god, but only if you can admit that your reasoning comes before your perception of this god.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I can't top Pvblivs's explanation of the gaping flaw in your position, Dan, so I'll only add that I would be willing to wager (a lot) that if you had a shred of compelling evidence for your god - if you had something as unambiguous and consistent as the evidence for the earth orbiting the sun, for example, or if you had even a fraction of the body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection - then you would have the means to convince anyone of your god's existence, not just those who have suffered religious indoctrination.

    In fact, I would venture to suggest that if you had such evidence, you would abandon presuppositionalism altogether and decide that the evidentialist approach was right all along, and is our best means for accumulating knowledge of our world.

    It's only because you lack any clear and unequivocal evidence that you resort to the intellectually bankrupt notion of presupposing that your god is necessary for all things - though you have so far failed, and will continue to fail, to demonstrate how it's possible for you to do this without consulting your own senses and reason first.

    By all means, try to demonstrate that I'm wrong here - but I don't think you can.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Pvb,

    >>You have to assume your reasoning before you advance your god as any kind of premise.

    Is it your claim that its impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Please answer so I can continue. Maybe DD would be "willing to wager (a lot)" that you will not respond to this one question.

    ReplyDelete
  91. This is what an objective morality does for you, folks: it turns you into a douchebag.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Wem,

    >>This is what an objective morality does for you, folks: it turns you into a douchebag.

    Thanks for admitting that either you are a douche bag or that your morality is merely subjective.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Thanks for admitting that either my morality is objective (and thus we are both douchebags) or that your worldview is intellectually bankrupt!

    ReplyDelete
  94. Dan:

         An omnipotent being could "reveal" lies to you in such a way that you would say you were certain they were true. It is not logically possible for such a being to reveal anything in a way that you would be genuinely certain because there would be no way to distinguish the revelation from a trick.
         But I have given you that answer before. You always ignore it and pose the same question over and over again. So answer me this, how can you know that your "revelation" is not a trick. Remember, if the "revelation" is a trick, you will still think yourself certain, and you will not be aware that you only THINK yourself certain.

    ReplyDelete
  95. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Pvb,

    >>So answer me this, how can you know that your "revelation" is not a trick

    “…in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, but at the proper time manifested, [even] His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior…” (Titus 1:2-3) God cannot lie.

    For if [the] dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith [is] futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. ~ 1 Cor 15:12-19

    >> Remember, if the "revelation" is a trick, you will still think yourself certain, and you will not be aware that you only THINK yourself certain.

    I wish I would of thought of this myself but,

    " If God intended to deceive, He would not be God. He would be Satan."

    " A God of that character is not God at all, and therefore, yet again, another impossible (redefinition) advanced as an argument. If we could win by redefining things, debates would be fairly short affairs" ~RazorsKiss

    RK goes on and drives the razor in, "A God who is evil instead of good, who is a liar rather than the truth, is mutable rather than immutable, and imperfect rather than perfect, unjust rather than just… we could go on. Your questions all seem to entail redefinitions. “if God had an impossible definition for any being claiming to be the God you believe in, or any god at all, could he do _X_”. To claim that the antithesis of the self-existent and omnipotent God that I believe in is possible – seems to be.. a stretch."

    Then my all time FAVORITE slam debunk,

    "Sir, I’m not going to change my answer because you continue to ask it. “God” entails the properties already outlined. If a being does not conform to those properties, as I answered in response to your very first question – that is no god at all. I’m not going to contradict myself so that you can continue your argument. Further, I’ve stated, multiple times, that God is axiomatic to all human reasoning. You’re asking me, on the basis of your presupposition, to overthrow everything I’ve said thus far, to answer a question the way you prefer." ~ RazorsKiss

    I am a fan of RazorsKiss :7)

    ReplyDelete
  97. So you admit there's a possibility that you worship Satan?

    ReplyDelete
  98. JC,

    you're so silly.

    >>So now children DO go to Hell?

    No

    >>Or are you saying evil people go to heaven?

    Yes washed clean by Christ's blood. No one can enter Heaven otherwise. Children, and innocent, are washed clean are in Christ. God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about.

    >>You think children are wretched or evil?

    Yes, born evil. Do you have an older brother? If you do, like I do, then you would understand what they are universally called. Evil, jerks, blankholes, etc.

    >> I guess that makes it easier to accept YHWH's commands to kill children in the Bible.

    Taxicab fallacy -the nineteenth century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer quipped, premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a hack once you’ve arrived at your desired destination!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Dan:

         "God cannot lie."
         You THINK your god cannot lie. But, if that were true, he wouldn't be omnipotent, would he? The claim that your god cannot lie is (unless he doesn't exist) a lie.
         I am not going to get into whether your god deserves the title. The god described in the bible is evil. If that means that he is no god, then so be it.
         "Further, I’ve stated, multiple times, that [g]od is axiomatic to all human reasoning."
         He may have stated that multiple times. But that doesn't make it any less false. We can observe that people who do not believe in gods can still reason. Therefore no god is a required axiom. In a similar manner the Parallel Postulate is not a required axiom of geometry. If one includes it, one gets Euclidean Geometry. But if one wishes to discuss the geometry on the surface of a sphere a different conflicting axiom applies. Now, there may, or may not, be a god. But worldviews without gods are sensible as well.
         "I am a fan of RazorsKiss"
         And presumably anyone else who sells the same lie.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Pvblivs asked: So answer me this, how can you know that your "revelation" is not a trick

    Dan responded with scripture as follows: “…in the hope of eternal life {snip}

    Everyone noticed that you failed to answer the question, Dan. I'll bet even you understand that you're avoiding it.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Is it your claim that its impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Please answer so I can continue. Maybe DD would be "willing to wager (a lot)" that you will not respond to this one question.

    Hopefully Pvblivs won't mind me pouncing on this one, Dan - because I'm quite confident that, unlike you, he will consider the question and respond in his own time - but I'm sure you know that's not what's being claimed at all.

    Sure it's possible that an omnipotent being could reveal things to you such that you could be certain of them. Just as it's equally possible that such a being could be misleading or outright deceiving you. I contend that you would have no way of knowing which it was without consulting your own senses and reasoning, independently of such a being's influence.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Obviously I should have read further before responding, but it was gratifying to see that my confidence was not misplaced - neither in Pvblivs's response nor your avoidance of the issue, Dan.

    Quoting scripture and other people's naive pronouncements about what they think their god is like does not address the issue of how you can be in a position to know anything about any kind of god.

    An omnipotent being could easily make you believe anything at all, Dan, even complete falsehoods. An evil omnipotent being would lose nothing by making you believe with certainty that it was good. If such a being is controlling your reason and perception such that you have no way of verifying its claims, then quite frankly, you're screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Pvblivs asked: So answer me this, how can you know that your "revelation" is not a trick

    ANTZILLA asked: How do you/anyone/everyone verify which or any revelations are real?

    So...

    How do you/anyone/everyone verify which or any revelations are real and do you verify they are not tricks?

    Let me guess you responce
    *crickets*

    "...quite frankly, you're screwed"

    ReplyDelete
  104. Wow, this went on forever before I realized someone linked to my blog.

    I'm apparently a year late for the conversation, but to those that say that God is the source for logic, morality, or any other abstract thing, I say "Prove it!". For that matter, prove there is any objective source at all. The problem you will have with that is that when you show that there's a source, you will show there is a natural source, and the argument goes away.

    The existence of logic does not mean that it needs a source outside our minds, and we certainly have plentiful reason to believe it doesn't come from anything other than our observation of reality.

    Matt Slick tried to argue with me about this on his blog, but he always totally ignores the fact that we learn only what we believe to be true, and we learn almost all of that by analogue. There is no necessity of a god whatsoever in order that we can make observations. The only reason that a thing is what it is and isn't what it isn't is because that's what we observe to be true. If things didn't happen that way, it wouldn't be true would it?

    The fact that there are objective truths out there is the only thing necessary for us to have rational discussion about the world. It's no more difficult than that.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Godlessons,

    >>I'm apparently a year late for the conversation, but to those that say that God is the source for logic, morality, or any other abstract thing, I say "Prove it!".

    Indeed, but first, in order to prove something to you, I will need to know what qualifies as proof according to your position. Please answer the following questions:

    1. Does the thing proven have to be absolutely true?
    2. Does the thing proven have to be known for certain to be absolutely true?
    3. Does the thing proven have to follow absolute laws of logic?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Answer them only if you want to, 'lessons, but from my vantage point Dan is attempting to shut you up - not engage you in thoughtful or honest conversation.

    Good luck either way

    ReplyDelete

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