The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence [Archive]

TheFiveSolas

January 31st 2003, 03:33 PM

Hey Blake,
You do seem to get the gist (spelling?) of the argument and are doing a fairly good job of explaining it. Keep in mind that Bahnsen's degree is in Philosophy which means that he uses terms that most of us aren't used to (i.e., inductive principle, transcendentals, preconditions of intelligibility, etc.)

This type of argument sometimes is hard to grasp, not necessarily because it is complicated (it's not really), but rather because it forces us to think in a way we aren't used to doing.

Another point of clarification that I can make is that this type of argument doesn't deal with specifics (i.e., what is the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc.). Not that the details aren't important, they are. But, we need to keep in mind that ALL facts (details) are INTERPRETED within a framework (worldview). In other words, individual facts are NOT self-interpreting. Instead, the transcendental method deals with the underlying assumptions that are inherent in any argument, tries to flush them out and get the proponent to provide a rational account of why those assumptions (more correctly presuppositions) are valid. In other words, it attacks the very foundation of the unbeliever's argument in an attempt to show that at CORE they have both feet firmly planted in mid-air!

Perhaps an example would help.
Currently there is a debate (predominantly) between JP and Till over an alleged contradiction in the gospel accounts of the women who went to the empty tomb. We are commanded in Scripture to study and give an answer to all who ask, to defend the truth. Therefore, we as Christians should attempt to answer these types of charges being brought up against the Scriptures. However, as you can see, many (if not in every case) it boils down to one's interpretation over and against the other's. How is this to be resolved? This is where the transcendental method comes in. We can attack the very foundation of Till's argument and show that without the Christian Worldview he would be UNABLE to even launch the attack. If we are successful we would be able to show that even in Till's ATTEMPT to critique the Christian Worldview he is forced to use assumptions/presuppositions that can only be rationally accounted for by the Christian Worldview. He, in essence, would be shown to be secretly borrowing concepts and ideas from the Christian Worldview and then attempting to destroy that very worldview. If this can be shown it would prove that at CORE Till's argument is inherently self-defeating!

In my next post I'll try to put some meat on this by taking ONE aspect of Till's argument and do what is called an internal critique of his system. If I'm successful I'll show that Till's argument borrows from the Christian conception of the world thus refuting his position right from its start!

smilax

January 31st 2003, 06:07 PM

TheFiveSolas:
We can attack the very foundation of Till's argument and show that without the Christian Worldview he would be UNABLE to even launch the attack.That's what Douglas Wilson did, yay.

Pate

January 31st 2003, 06:52 PM

smilax:
That's what Douglas Wilson did, yay.

Which brings to my mind this question...

I wonder wheter Till would agree to debate some subject other than biblical inerrancy on this board.

TheFiveSolas vs. Till on the Transcendental argument, for example.

Berean

January 31st 2003, 07:49 PM

TheFiveSolas: We can attack the very foundation of Till's argument and show that without the Christian Worldview he would be UNABLE to even launch the attack. If we are successful we would be able to show that even in Till's ATTEMPT to critique the Christian Worldview he is forced to use assumptions/presuppositions that can only be rationally accounted for by the Christian Worldview.
I agree with your argument,but I have a question about an objection raised by an atheist concerning this point. It is a theoretical case,but,to him at least,it disproves TAG.The argument in his words: "Suppose another being,not the triune God of Scripture,is responsible for creation.Suppose further that this being did not choose to reveal anything about itself to us.It is theoretically possible that this being could account for reality the same as the Christian God does,so we can not say that the Christian God is the only explanation."
That was,more or less,the exact wording. At the time,I could not answer this question.Could you please give me your thoughts on this?

Pate

January 31st 2003, 08:08 PM

Berean:
I agree with your argument,but I have a question about an objection raised by an atheist concerning this point. It is a theoretical case,but,to him at least,it disproves TAG.The argument in his words: "Suppose another being,not the triune God of Scripture,is responsible for creation.Suppose further that this being did not choose to reveal anything about itself to us.It is theoretically possible that this being could account for reality the same as the Christian God does,so we can not say that the Christian God is the only explanation."
That was,more or less,the exact wording. At the time,I could not answer this question.Could you please give me your thoughts on this?

This still refutes atheism.

Berean

January 31st 2003, 08:20 PM

Pate:This still refutes atheism.
I know,that's what I told him.He wanted to know why choose Christianity over other possible Theistic explanations.Sorry:blush: I guess I didn't make that clear in my first post.

TheFiveSolas

January 31st 2003, 11:18 PM

Berean,
I'll try to answer your question in my next post.

Blake,
Ok, here goes with an attempted critique of one aspect of Till's argument.

Till's argument is an attempt to show that the foundation for Christianity's system is inherently contradictory. If this can be proven Christianity would be reduced to absurdity. However, Till has a very big problem even getting his argument off the ground. Till is assuming several things in his argument that he has never (to my knowledge) given a rational account for. In other words, he begs a very crucial question and I intend to call him on it here. Till assumes the existence of logical laws! Now, before you think I'm denying the laws of logic I'll merely point out that I too affirm the existence of such laws. But, I can give a rational account of things such as laws that differentiate between valid and invalid arguments. On the other hand, how might Till rationally account for the laws of logic? To find out the answer to that question I would have to ask him a couple of questions in order to see what he means when he makes reference to logic (and its laws). This is the first of the two-pronged approach that I mentioned in my earlier post. It is an internal critique of his worldview.

Question 1
1) Are the laws of logic material or immaterial (non-physical)?

Now, how might an atheist like Till respond to question 1? He might give one of two answers (I hope this is obvious).
A1) The laws of logic are material (having the properties of matter or energy).
IF this is his answer I would have to ask for proof such as the physical properties of a logical law (i.e., its inherent size, shape, electron charge, etc.) I hope the absurdity of such a response is obvious.
A2) The laws of logic are immaterial.
IF this is his answer I would have to ask how he can rationally account, in his atheistic system, for the REAL existence of non-physical entities. What possible rational account could he give for their existence?

Note: In my questioning I'm attempting to get at the UNPROVEN assumptions that undergird Till's argument. If he cannot give a rational account of (or for) them then his argument fails at step one.

A second question I might ask would be this:
2) Are the laws of logic universal or are they the conventions of men?

He might respond that they are universally binding upon all men. But, how can an atheist rationally account for the existence of authoritative laws that ALL are bound by? How can an atheist account for UNIVERSALS in a physical world full of PARTICULARS?

On the other hand, he might assert that logical laws are the inventions (conventions) of men. This position would also destroy his attempted criticism of the Bible since if logical laws aren't universal then it follows that he can't impose HIS chosen "laws" upon others.

(2nd part of the two-pronged approach)
Lastly, (for now) I will compare and contrast his underlying rationale for believing in the existence of logical laws with the Christian worldview.
1) The Christian has a rational foundation for affirming the existence of non-physical entities since our view of reality encompasses both physical and non-physical objects. We also have rational grounds for KNOWING the nature of reality as being dualistic (physical and non-physical) because we have a written revelation from the ONE being who would know and therefore is able to reveal it. Simply put, God is the creator, is omniscient, and omnipotent, therefore He knows the nature of reality and has chosen to reveal it to us in Scripture. The atheist, on the other hand, has NO such epistemological foundation (i.e., he has no rational basis for claiming to know the true nature of reality).

2) The Christian can give a rational account for affirming the existence of UNIVERSALS since we have an authoritative, personal law-giver. God, as a fully rational being that created us in His image, provides the metaphysic (view of reality) for affirming that ALL men are rational creatures who have a MORAL obligation to be logical. On the other hand, atheists cannot account for universals nor can they account for a binding moral system by which people are obligated to be logical.

Ok, my brain is fading fast after a long day at work, etc. So, I'll stop here. Let me know if this helped and if I need to clarify anything I just said.

Pate

February 1st 2003, 05:36 AM

Berean:
I know,that's what I told him.He wanted to know why choose Christianity over other possible Theistic explanations.Sorry:blush: I guess I didn't make that clear in my first post.

I'd answer to him this way:

Given that some Supreme Being has created the world, we must be open to the possibility that this being also wants to reveal himself to humanity. If this being also is the source of morality (apparently your atheist friend admitted this in his hypothetical example) it would seem to prove that this Being is concerned about the fate of humanity. Therefore, it's almost to be expected that this Being has given at least some special revelation about himself some time, somewhere in human history. Then I'd just argue that the historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection, together with the facts about this being mentioned above, make it probable that Jesus was the unique revelation of this Supreme Being, and therefore, what Jesus taught about God, can be accepted as authoritative and true.

Berean

February 1st 2003, 10:22 AM

Pate:I'd answer to him this way:Given that some Supreme Being has created the world, we must be open to the possibility that this being also wants to reveal himself to humanity. If this being also is the source of morality (apparently your atheist friend admitted this in his hypothetical example) it would seem to prove that this Being is concerned about the fate of humanity. Therefore, it's almost to be expected that this Being has given at least some special revelation about himself some time, somewhere in human history. Then I'd just argue that the historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection, together with the facts about this being mentioned above, make it probable that Jesus was the unique revelation of this Supreme Being, and therefore, what Jesus taught about God, can be accepted as authoritative and true.
Thanks Pate.Good point.:thumb: My thoughts have sorta headed that direction since then,but,being new to TAG,I wanted to get other's opinions.

mattbballman19

February 1st 2003, 07:54 PM

Just some possible objections that may be brought against this argument:

I want my objections to fail, because this argument is obviously attractive.

First, a quick question with regard to morals.

It seems that this argument would work only after it is proven that the morals that the atheist uses are objective/absolute. I suggest that a necessary pre-requisite for utilizing the part of the transcedental argument which involves morals, because it assumes (which, or course, could be a correct assumption) that the morals that the atheist is presupposing are objective. It seems that X is a moral that the transcedental argument exounds upon if and only if X is proven to be objective and has no grounds existing in a relativistic philosophy.

With regard to science, it is said,

The fact that the unbeliever has no grounds for believing in the inductive principle. We ultimately don't know if the sun will rise tommorow or if things happen from day to day the unbeliever must assume this.

mattbballman19

February 1st 2003, 07:56 PM

Here's the rest of my post, it got cut off. :argh:

Couldn't it be said that even the proponent of the TAG could be said to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow just as much as the atheist? After all, God could return and that sun wouldn't rise!

That's all for now.

matt

TheFiveSolas

February 1st 2003, 09:25 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berean:
I agree with your argument,but I have a question about an objection raised by an atheist concerning this point. It is a theoretical case,but,to him at least,it disproves TAG.The argument in his words: "Suppose another being,not the triune God of Scripture,is responsible for creation.Suppose further that this being did not choose to reveal anything about itself to us.It is theoretically possible that this being could account for reality the same as the Christian God does,so we can not say that the Christian God is the only explanation."
That was,more or less,the exact wording. At the time,I could not answer this question.Could you please give me your thoughts on this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I first read this I have to admit it sounded like the following:

"If there was another being who was truly God instead of the God of the Bible, that would mean that your God wouldn't be the true one."

Well, of course.

I've come to realize that my reading comprehension isn't as good as I'd like which often means I have to read and re-read things, chew on them a bit, and only then am I ready to understand them.

So, let me try to restate the criticism in order to be sure I understand it correctly.

His argument is as follows.
The transcendental argument claims that only the Christian God can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility (meaningfulness) of anything, the necessary metaphysical foundation for reality, and the necessary epistemological foundation for knowledge. But, what if another God exists that can provide all of the above? Wouldn't that disprove the Christian God?

The obvious answer is yes. But what has this argument proven? As far as I can tell, not a thing. Let me put it this way. Are we being rational if we use arbitrary speculation and prejudicial conjecture? On what rational grounds does this atheist assert that another God exists (or possibly exists)? Based upon what evidence? What we are seeing here is an assertion, by an atheist, that is based completely on blind faith!

Furthermore, the argument posits a "God" that has "not chosen to reveal anything about itself to us." It should be obvious that you cannot RATIONALLY argue for the existence (or even possibility) of something that has absolutely NO EVIDENCE for its existence! On the other hand, within the Christian worldview, it is at least RATIONAL to make the claims we do since we have the belief that God has chosen to reveal Himself.

NOTE: I'm not at this point even attempting to argue whether or not the Christian belief is true. I'm merely comparing HIS presuppositions with that of the Christian in order to show WHICH are rational (from WITHIN their respective worldviews) and which ones do not comport. I think I've been able to show that this critique, even though it looks good on the surface, isn't rationally based. Rather, it relies on arbitrary assumptions and conjecture.

One of my professors used to tell us that when dealing with an objection or argument against our position we need to correctly portray it, and do so in its STRONGEST form. That way if we are able to refute it, all lesser forms of the argument will also have been dealt with.

In my next post I'll rework his argument into a stronger version and then attempt to refute it.

Berean

February 2nd 2003, 12:32 AM

To TheFiveSolas:
Yes,you have an excellent grasp of the argument made by said atheist.Thank you for taking time to reply.I am very interested in TAG,but,as I said in a previous post,I'm brand new to it.I look foward to your next post.

Gavin

February 2nd 2003, 03:01 PM

Thanks to Blake and FiveSolas for their explanations of this fascinating argument. I have thought a lot about the trancendental argument before, but I have never heard it clearly or academically set forth.

How long has this argument been around? What is its history? I know you have the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguements as those classically set forth in natural theology, and then you have the moral argument that CS Lewis and others used.

Where does the trancendental argument fit in to all this?

Thanks for any info anyone can provide.

PS - also, is the trancendental argument part of presuppositional apologetics?

Blake Reas

February 3rd 2003, 01:57 AM

I think that my good presupp buddy fivesolas could give a better account. I read in a debate between Douglas Wilson (Christian), Michael Martin (atheist), and Keith Parsons(Atheist) that it started in a rough form with John Calvin. I think he also mentioned some people earlier in the Church but don't take my word for it. Van Till is responsible for really formulating it in a more formal manner and Bahnsen pretty much perfected it from what I have heard in his debates. But then again I may not have the philosophical mind to examine as well as could be! After all my passion is Biblical Criticism.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. I wish I knew more! :argh:

Blake Reas

February 3rd 2003, 02:32 AM

The Transcendental Argument is definetley a part of presuppositionalism.

In Christ,
Blake Reas:yipee:

Blake Reas

February 3rd 2003, 02:42 AM

Fivesolas,

I really appreciate you explanations and helping me clear up some misconceptions that I might have had! I think that for the most part I had what you said in my head but do to my limited vocab (being 19 and only touching the tip of the iceberg of my studies) I was having trouble formulating it!

In Christ,
Blake reas:cheers:

mattbballman19

February 3rd 2003, 03:22 PM

Yo,

I signed, sealed and delivered my comments regarding TAG. A response would be a sight for sore eyes even if you shot my response to hell:)

I have a feeling that I'm a sitting duck, because, whether or not my argument sinks or swims, I've noticed that most of people agree with TAG. It's few and far between that I'm right in my speculations anyway!

matt

TheFiveSolas

February 3rd 2003, 07:28 PM

Matt,
Just a quick note that I will be addressing your post after I teach a class this evening (Monday).

Berean,
Hopefully I will also be posting a stronger version of the atheist's argument and dismantling (spelling?) it later tonight as well.

TheFiveSolas

February 4th 2003, 12:02 AM

Ok, here goes.

Matt said...

Couldn't it be said that even the proponent of the TAG could be said to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow just as much as the atheist? After all, God could return and that sun wouldn't rise!

I say...

The example of the sun rising tomorrow (given by Blake) and the atheist's (lack of) rational grounds for believing so was a bit unclear.

Blake's argument was NOT that we KNOW for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. As you pointed out Christians believe that Jesus may return (or some other event could happen such as an asteroid destroying the earth, etc.) This means that even Christians don't know for certain whether the sun will rise. You correctly point out that we too assume that this will be the case.

However, the actual argument was one dealing with the atheist's (or non-Christian's) rational grounds for believing that physical events act in predictable cause-effect relationships. This refers to the principle of induction. Namely, the belief that the way things have happened in the past will continue to do so in the future (and will do so BECAUSE matter/energy have inherent physical properties that cause them to act/react in fixed ways according to physical laws such as the laws of Chemistry and Physics).

The principle of induction is what undergirds ALL science. Induction needs to be true in order for science to work. In other words, scientific inquiry ASSUMES that ALL events can be studied and traced back to a cause.

Now, what the proponent of TAG will ask the atheist is WHY they assume that the principle of induction holds true. Remember, we are looking for RATIONAL justification for holding this belief. How can the atheist (or non-Christian) rationally account for his belief that ALL matter/energy acts/reacts due to causal connections? The fact of the matter is that the atheist has NO epistemological grounds (dealing with HOW we know what we claim to know) for making such an assertion.

NO atheist or human being (or even human beings as a whole) have SEEN any causal relationship between events. We ALL have merely seen sequences of events following other events. Neither have we studied ALL events. In a universe where our galaxy alone (one of billions I'm told) is so large that it would take over 100,000yrs for light to move from one side to the other (at the rate of 700,000,000 miles per hour) we can be sure we have only studied the very SMALLEST percentage of events.

Now, lets compare that with the Christian view and see which has (within its respective worldview) a rational foundation for believing what it asserts, in this instance the validity of the principle of induction.

The Christian claims a revelation from a God that CREATED the ENTIRE universe. This God knows whether or not all events have causes or whether there exist completely random uncaused events. God's revelation in Scripture asserts that God is in full control of all that He has created (i.e., His providence). Therefore, we can know that all physical events have a causal connection because God, who knows the truth about reality (since He created ALL of it), has chosen to reveal certain things about the nature of reality to us!

In summary, it should be clear that when it comes to the RATIONAL grounds for a person's belief in induction, the Christian has such a foundation whereas the atheist does not.

Since its now 11pm and I have some studying to do I'll have to address your other question/critique at another time. The same holds true for Berean's atheist's argument.

Nite.... Me------> :read:

mattbballman19

February 4th 2003, 05:09 PM

Yo five,

Thanks for the clarification, it helped. Something has me stumped though. Does this TAG argument only work on atheists? It seems that this argument only pummels those world-views with hammer and tongs which have no transedent reference point to anchor their unchangeable notions of morality, science, and logic using the rules that are available within a changing, subjective, relative world-view. When they try to justify how they can use these unchangeable notions, they borrow from the "Christian Worldview". My question is, why must it be the Christian world-view. Why can't it be any world-view, which allows for a transcedant reference point?

matt

TheFiveSolas

February 6th 2003, 02:39 AM

Matt,
The transcendental argument can be employed against any non-Christian system (atheistic or religious). Hopefully my reply to the stronger version of Berean's atheist's argument will help show why.

Here goes...

I've already shown how the original argument put forth by Berean's atheist was nothing more than an argument from arbitrary speculation. Therefore, it was not rationally based. I also showed how in comparison, the Christian worldview is justified in (can rationally account for) its presuppositions (ultimate assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics).

A stronger form of the argument (put in question form) would be as follows. Why does it have to be the Christian God and not some other transcendent one?

There are many ways of addressing this question/challenge. However, all will involve doing an internal analysis of the non-Christian's worldview (his fundamental assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics). In so doing, we will show that IF the non-Christian's worldview were true, science, rationality, ethics, knowledge, etc. would be impossible. But how do we accomplish this?

The answer comes when we look at what things need to be true about the world we live in, our nature, etc. in order for ANYTHING to be meaningful.

The term "transcendental" in TAG does not refer merely to that which "transcends" human experience, but rather refer to what preconditions are necessary for ANY human experience to be meaningful. Bahnsen and Van Til refer to these transcendentals as the preconditions for intelligibility.

Their insight came from realizing that everyone's worldview is made up of a NETWORK (a web) of beliefs that are INTERRELATED. Some of our beliefs are more foundational (or fundamental) than others. Some are absolutely necessary for making anything intelligible. Those that are absolutely necessary are transcendental.

Let me give a few examples in an attempt to help clarify what I mean. Some (there are many others, but I give these for starters) of the necessary foundational assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics are as follows.
1) We exist.
2) A world separate from ourselves exists (i.e., there is a difference between what makes ME me, and what makes something not me, or part of me)
3) The world operates in a rationally understandable fashion (i.e., laws of cause/effect operate otherwise we would be UNABLE to make sense of ANY event)
4) Our senses bring us into contact with a REAL world that is external to ourselves.
5) Our senses are generally reliable.
6) Our brains are generally reliable in INTERPRETING the information that our senses bring it.
7) We have free will in the sense that we are NOT physically/chemically determined to think a certain way (i.e., that we have the freedom and ability to choose to believe one thing over and against another.)
8) That there exists an objective and universally binding standard by which we OUGHT to make choices (i.e., that reason/rationality aren't person relative).
9) That there exists objective and universally binding standards by which we OUGHT to behave (i.e., people SHOULD be rational, people should NOT murder, etc.).

All of the above (and more) need to be true in order for ANY human experience to be made intelligible. Deny any precondition and you destroy all hopes of intelligibility. It boils down to either a COMPREHENSIVE worldview that accounts for all necessary preconditions or else all human experience would be unintelligible and therefore absurd.

Now which worldview can rationally account for ALL of the above (and any other necessary preconditions) and do so SIMULTANEOUSLY? Also, how can our claim, to KNOW that these necessary preconditions for intelligiblity ACTUALLY are true, be rationally justified?

If it can be shown that the Christian worldview can account for all of the above it will be shown to be the ONLY worldview to be able to do so. The reason is simple, Scripture asserts that only the Christian worldview is true. Therefore, if the worldview asserted by Scripture is NECESSARY for making ANY human experience intelligible it follows that it alone does so. Or, to put it another way, ALL other rival views need to ASSUME the truth (about the nature of reality, knowledge, man, ethics, etc.) found in Scripture in order to even ATTEMPT to argue against it! They end up refuting themselves in their very attempt at refuting Christianity.

I will try to flesh this out in my next post since its now about 1:40am.

One last thing before I hit the sack. I could point to ANY aspect of human experience and show how unless the God of Scripture exists it would be unintelligible (not able to be talked about rationally). For example, if my worldview was strict materialism (that only matter and energy exists) and yet I maintained that love exists but isn't material (i.e., solely a biochemical stimulus/response) I would be shown to be holding TWO beliefs that do not comport with each other. Or to put it another way, I would be UNABLE to speak meaningfully about love as something MORE (or other) than a biochemical reaction. If nothing more than matter/energy exists then it necessarily follows that love cannot be anything BUT matter or energy and to speak otherwise is to speak unintelligibly (within that respective worldview).

Gavin

February 6th 2003, 04:59 PM

Pate

February 6th 2003, 05:53 PM

Gavin:

sorry, but I still don't see how it makes the argument exclusive to Christianity. After all, couldn't the exact same be said of the koran? Other books than the Bible assume intelligibility.

I agree. It's obvious that of all the different conceptions of God, only the one that actually corresponds to reality, can actually be the necessary basis of human rationality, but the problem still remains, that we don't know (by the merits of TAG), which one it is.

mattbballman19

February 6th 2003, 06:59 PM

If it can be shown that the Christian worldview can account for all of the above it will be shown to be the ONLY worldview to be able to do so. The reason is simple, Scripture asserts that only the Christian worldview is true. Therefore, if the worldview asserted by Scripture is NECESSARY for making ANY human experience intelligible it follows that it alone does so. Or, to put it another way, ALL other rival views need to ASSUME the truth (about the nature of reality, knowledge, man, ethics, etc.) found in Scripture in order to even ATTEMPT to argue against it! They end up refuting themselves in their very attempt at refuting Christianity.

It looks like you make a leap from Scripture being the foundation upon which we build veracity of the Christian world-view to making the assertions found within Scripture to be the only way in which we can hold all of the presuppositions mentioned. I don't see the connection.

You say,

ALL other rival views need to ASSUME the truth (about the nature of reality, knowledge, man, ethics, etc.) found in Scripture in order to even ATTEMPT to argue against it!

Does not this beg the question of whether Christians are the ones assuming or not? What if the Muslim came along and asserted that "all other views need to assume the truth of Islam in order to attack Islam. The questions that are asked about the nature of reality, knowledge, man, and ethics are found in the Quaran, any attempt to undermine that presupposes the truth which the Quaran advocates."

It looks like we need something a little extra in order to avoid the logical error of begging the question, if I'm interpreting you correctly. It seems that 'extraness' would be a consideration of the evidence supporting the contrasting religious claims.

Don't get me wrong, I have a strong intuitive, a priori conviction that TAG is effective against world-views which deny a transendent being to anchor the beliefs that they hold regarding logic, laws of science, and ethics/morals, but when using the argument to discredit the truth-claims of other religions, which have a transendent anchor for the the above beliefs, I think it may be ineffective.

I'll await your response.

matt

TheFiveSolas

February 6th 2003, 07:47 PM

Gavin, Pate, and Matt,

I'm on break at the office so this will be quite short. More to follow later or tomorrow night.

You are bringing up some very good questions, however please keep in mind I've only laid out a preliminary sketch (that I'm only half-done with).

Also, the section that you three quote me on starts with "If it can be shown that the Christian worldview can account for all of the above it will be shown to be the ONLY worldview to be able to do so" (note: I then went on to give a few reasons why this would be the case). The key word being "If". Meaning I recognize I haven't attempted to prove this yet.

With regards to Islam being able to make the same assertions as a Christian (in this case, claiming that their view provides the preconditions of intelligibility) I would admit that anyone can make the same assertions, proving it is a completely different matter.

I deal with Islam as a Christian heresy. As I stated in my earlier post, we are to do an internal critique of the system that we are being challenged by.

For example, the Qur'an claims to be a continuation of the revelation of the SAME God spoken of in the Old and New Testaments. Yet, the Qur'an contradicts (by this I mean it SPECIFICALLY denies) certain teachings found in the Old and New Testaments (such as the crucifixion of Jesus, His atoning sacrifice for sin, etc.) It is self-refuting to claim, as the Qur'an does, to be a revelation of the same God of the Bible and then go on to deny what the Bible teaches.

Another example is the Islamic doctrine of Tanzih which refers to the UTTER transcendence of Allah. This doctrine teaches that Allah is so completely different from ANYTHING in the created order that he cannot be compared/spoken of/described by anything. Yet, the Qur'an claims to be a revelation of what Allah is like. Again, internally this system is shown to be self-refuting. You cannot hold that "God" (Allah) has been revealed in the Qur'an AND that also maintain that he cannot be compared or described in any way.

After completing my other post I'll try to return to deal with this one in more detail.

Ishmael

February 6th 2003, 08:39 PM

I know this is not very nice but I am going to dispute all of this in an attempt to get my mind around it a little bit better.

Blake Reas:
I have been looking into the Transcendental Argument for God's existence for a while and will give some of the main points that it makes and a few links to see what everyone thinks. But remember it does have some hints of the ontological argument but it is supposed to. It is part of the presuppostional apologetic, which assumes the Christian Worldview. So if the Christian view fo perfection is true then the argument is true.

I'll assume instead a Atheist worldview. My presupostion is that Logic is an Evolutionary noetic, along with belief in the past, and other people's capacity to think and feel.

Logic
Logic is grounded in God's being for it is part of his nature. God cannot become illogical or make 2+2=5 it is against his very nature so God is necessary for Logic. If the non believer wants to debate this they must give an account of where knowledge comes from.

False.
Epistemology comes from observation. To say that there is a source for knowledge other than our own, inate, "intuitive "immediate knowledge" consist of the real empirical objects with which we are directly acquainted in perception," is to speak of that thing which is "meaningless." Looking for a "source" of something that is obviously noetic to every human person is philosophically deranged.

I reject altogether that there [i]must be a "source" of "logic" when "logic" is empirically noetic to every human person-- looking for a source is therefore meaningless.

Science
You must presume a traditonal view of God's Providence and foreknowledge for this. The fact that the unbeliever has no grounds for believing in the inductive principle.

False premise altogether. One does not have to have a traditional view of God's providence and foreknowledge to understand Science. In fact, many pre-Christian philosophers were working on a rational system of observation long before Christianity emerged: http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/presocratic.html

We ultimately don't know if the sun will rise tommorow or if things happen from day today the unbeliever must assume this. The theist on the other hand believes in a sovereign all powerful God who is in control of all things (Ephesians 1).

False. I know that the sun will rise tommorow by empirical observation that on other days, the sun has "risen." You "believe" that God...(fill in the blank).

So the theist can assume that God is good and that he governs the universe in rational fashion (looking back on logic and looking forward to morality). For instance some "miracles" are brought about by God using the natural order (Ie. moses at the Sea of Reeds).

A thiest can assume whatever they want, no matter how empirically unsubstantiated and imaginary those assumptions are.

Morality
This is much the same as logic. Goodness, holiness, justice etc. are grounded in God's nature he cannot act against this nature therefore since we are created in his image we have these moral compasses also.

False. Morality does not have any objective foundation. Instead, moral standards are grounded only in social custom.

"The "right" way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down. The tradition is its own warrant. It is not held subject to verification by experience. The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways, whatever is, is right. This is because they are traditional, and therefore contain in themselves the authority of the ancestral ghosts. When we come to the folkways we are at the end of our analysis." [Folkways (Boston: Ginn, 1906)]

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/m-relati.htm

No God created our morals, we did.

just a run down of a huge argument. I in no way claim to have represented it fairly. This is what I know from what I have read. If you want links I can post some if anyone wants to read further.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

:angel:

mattbballman19

February 6th 2003, 09:00 PM

"If it can be shown that the Christian worldview can account for all of the above it will be shown to be the ONLY worldview to be able to do so"

Would you say that the Christian world-view would be proven vai TAG, or by someother means? I think what you said above is valid, but I would question premise one of the this particular formulation of the argument given below:
You say,
1. If A (the Christian world-view account for all of the above), then B (then it will be shown that this is the only world-view that can to so).
2. A (the Christian world-view account for all of the above)
Therefore,
3. B (this is the only world-view that can to so).

What argument can you give in support for premise one? I think this is crucial.

matt

TheFiveSolas

February 6th 2003, 10:56 PM

Hmmm, where to begin? Just a little bit of information about me. My brain runs at high speed, which means I easily go off on tangents and become side-tracked. Therefore, it takes a lot of effort to keep myself focused. That's what I will try to do in this post.

This will be a follow up and continuation of my defense of Christianity over and against other "religious" systems by means of the Transcendental Argument for God.

A couple of preliminary remarks.

After chewing (mentally) on my last post (on this question) I realized that it is quite possible that people may read it and come away with the impression that presuppositional apologetics is very formal and abstract. This is far from correct. I need to point out that Van Til stressed not a vague philosophical worldview, but rather a concrete one that STARTS with the God revealed in Scripture, along with the Scripture's assertions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics. In other words, he and I are NOT offering for dialog with the unbeliever a worldview of some generic god with undetermined attributes and character, but rather we offer the full and specific worldview of Biblical Christianity.

Matt wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I have a strong intuitive, a priori conviction that TAG is effective against world-views which deny a transendent being to anchor the beliefs that they hold regarding logic, laws of science, and ethics/morals, but when using the argument to discredit the truth-claims of other religions, which have a transendent anchor for the the above beliefs, I think it may be ineffective.

I answer:
There exist VAST differences between religious systems. They vary on their core assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics. Some believe in "God", others do not. Some hold a personal view of God, others an impersonal view. Some maintain that ALL reality is ultimately One (in the sense that ALL distinctions are illusory), whereas others affirm the reality of these distinctions.

Therefore, merely positing a vague "transcendent anchor" doesn't offer a RATIONAL justification for all of the preconditions I listed in my earlier post. You have to look at the specifics of whichever "transcendent anchor" you are referring to. In other words, when I first read your statement that it seems that ANY religious system could provide the preconditions of intelligibility because they have the ability to appeal to a "transcendent" reality, I thought two things.
1) That assertion is way too vague.
2) It seems to naively assume that as long as a person believes in a "transcendent" reality/being they can rationally account for everything from freewill to laws of logic to love.

Let me give an example.
In the Hindu system of thought all of reality is ultimately ONE. Any distinctions that we assume exist are merely illusory. At core, there is no difference between me and you, me and the universe, etc. Now, IF that view of reality WERE true, would we be able to speak meaningfully about anything? IF ultimately there were NO differences between me and anything else, then any attempt at dialogue that relied on distinctions of ANY type would be precluded (ruled out). In other words, there could be no such thing as colors, love, me, you, right, wrong, good, evil, rationality, irrationality, thought, stars, etc. All of the things I listed could ONLY exist in a world (reality) where some things ACTUALLY are DIFFERENT from other things.

Now, if I compare the Christian worldview to the one I just listed which of the two can MEANINGFULLY talk about love, animals, me, you, humanity, rocks, logic, etc.? The answer should be obvious.

What I just did is what I was referring to in an earlier post as the two-pronged approach. Doing an internal critique of the competing worldview in question (Note to Matt, this is impossible to do when you only offer a vague, unspecified one). And then doing a side by side comparison to the SPECIFIC concrete Biblical Worldview in order to show that meaning can ONLY be maintained in the one and not the other.

We now have to deal with the question of HOW (and even IF) we can KNOW which view of reality (if any) is correct?

This is where Christianity separates itself from ALL other competitors out there. When it comes to epistemological justification, there aren't even contenders in the ring.

Oh, yes, there exist other "holy books". You have the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the Sutras, I Ching, etc., but they are nothing like what the Bible presents itself as being. To quote Dr. Bahnsen, "from an epistemological perspective these "sacred" books are not and cannot be anything like what the Bible claims for itself, namely, to be the Personal communication and infallible verbal revelation from the only living, completely sovereign, and all-knowing Creator."

If none of the other "holy books" even makes the claim to be the infallible "Personal communication" of the only sovereign and all-knowing Creator, it necessarily follows that they can't be put forward as providing an absolutely true account of the nature of reality, knowledge, or ethics. They rule themselves out. Again, the reason should be obvious, if they don't even CLAIM to come from God, then it necessarily follows that they can be nothing MORE than the fallible opinions of finite men and women.

I'll stop here for now and post more later or tomorrow night.

mattbballman19

February 7th 2003, 01:01 AM

This will be a follow up and continuation of my defense of Christianity over and against other "religious" systems by means of the Transcendental Argument for God.

I would agree with you if you used TAG to show internal inconsistencies with a particular religion which does not have a transendent anchor (hereafter TA): By TA I mean: X is a TA if and only if: X is the ontologically greatest being within that religion, X is the basis for what the adherents of that religion believe about logic, science, and morality. So, religions systems without TA would be under the iron fist of TAG.

we offer the full and specific worldview of Biblical Christianity.

I would say, even though you probably clarify yourself later on in the post, that this world-view is just presupposed on the basis of it's internal consistency. Am I right? I could provide some counter-examples involving internally consistent ideas which do not seem to exist. If you need them, I shall provide them. Tell me if I set up a straw-man, but if I'm not, postulating a world-view as a starting point only on the basis of internal consistency does not seem to be enough.

There exist VAST differences between religious systems. They vary on their core assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics. Some believe in "God", others do not.

I would prefer to isolate those religious systems which include God as part of it's dogma, thereby opening up the TA I described above.

1) That assertion is way too vague. 2) It seems to naively assume that as long as a person believes in a "transcendent" reality/being they can rationally account for everything from freewill to laws of logic to love.

I have provided clarification for 1. With regard to 2, I see you saying that it is somehow wrong or rationally unjustified for me to point to any ole' TA because of the nature of the TA being described within the religious context the TA resides. For example, if I point to how the Hindu's have a TA and/or millions of TA's (which violates our original defintion, or course, but we'll just go on for the example's sake) which would justify the Hindu in believing what he/she does about the nature of logic, science, and/or morality, I would have to look at TA with the nuanced eye submitting to the rules which govern that particular world-view. Since Hindu's reject logic and morality then that TA would be inconsistent with what the Hindu was pointing to as rational justification.

Let me ask you this question: Is it possible to be internally inconsistent within a given world-view and at the same time be rationally justified during your inconsistency? Since the Hindu's have no choice but live in the world that the Biblical God made then no matter how the Hindu lives the dogmas of his belief, he/she will be rationally justified in the actions, since their living in a rational world.

And then doing a side by side comparison to the SPECIFIC concrete Biblical Worldview in order to show that meaning can ONLY be maintained in the one and not the other.

Again, you may already believe this, but under this radix, TAG would not work 'by itself' as a complete test for truth. It only seems to be good in pointing out the inconsistencies of others. This side-by-side comparison is meaningless without a test for truth for the Christian/Biblical world-view. And internal consistency is not enough for the reasons stated above. So it seems that TAG is good for a test for falsity, but not for truth. Especially when we start to hit the similarities which are inherent with Christianity, Judiaism, and Islam.

Also, I would like to see this shift the effectiveness more towards Christianity's cousins: Judism and Islam. Let's start with what you say about Islam:

"from an epistemological perspective these "sacred" books are not and cannot be anything like what the Bible claims for itself, namely, to be the Personal communication and infallible verbal revelation from the only living, completely sovereign, and all-knowing Creator."

I find this false on two counts: 1. From my reading of Islam and Judaism, they both claim to have the a. very words of Allah encased within the text of the Quaran and b. the very Old Testament which Christianity even accepts as words from God. 2. Also, it doesn't seem that your conclusion follows from your premises. Just because the Bible 'claim's' to be the spoken word of God, doesn't mean it is. Again, that seems to be beggin the question.

Thanks for your time, I'm learning alot.

matt

TheFiveSolas

February 7th 2003, 01:54 PM

I'm on break and wanted to quickly address one of your comments.

Matt wrote:
You say,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL other rival views need to ASSUME the truth (about the nature of reality, knowledge, man, ethics, etc.) found in Scripture in order to even ATTEMPT to argue against it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does not this beg the question of whether Christians are the ones assuming or not?

I say:

I am not denying that Christians presuppose the Christian worldview. Or to put it another way, we ALL start with faith. We all come at the facts with a network of presuppositions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics. These presuppositions operate PRIOR to experience and are the "lens" through which ALL experience is interpreted. In other words, presuppositions are our PRIOR committment to a certain view of reality, knowledge, and ethics.

For example, in a recent public debate an atheist professor made the assertion that, "science has PROVEN that certain events happen without any cause whatsoever". I challenged this assertion by asking how he could justify this claim. How could it be PROVEN that a certain event had NO prior cause? How much knowledge would someone have to possess in order to KNOW that there was no preceding cause to a certain event? I asserted that you would have to know everything (i.e., be omniscient).

This example shows the controlling nature of one's underlying presuppositions.

As another example, suppose you have two scientists observing the same event and that it is an event that at this point in time we are unable to explain. One scientist holds, by faith, a view of reality that says ALL events have a cause even if we don't currently understand or know what that cause is. The other scientist, also by faith, holds that completely random, uncaused events are possible. Both scientists are observing the EXACT SAME event, but their subsequent interpretations of that event will be determined by the underlying presuppositions. Therefore, the one scientist when confronted with an unexplainable phenomena will conclude that, "this is indeed a strange phenomena, but there must be a cause behind it, let's try to figure out what that cause is." The other scientist, on the other hand, might conclude (from the exact same data) that, "here is an event that is completely random having no preceding cause whatsoever."

I maintain that without a being that KNOWS the CORRECT nature of reality AND who reveals it to us ALL of our presuppositions would be held by BLIND faith!

More to come...

mattbballman19

February 7th 2003, 02:07 PM

I agree with everything you said, but my question wasn't really aimed toward whether certian world-views need to assume anything or not (that is a given), but how the world-view that I/he/she is presupposing is the one which corresponds to reality. It seems that your only test would be internal consistency, which I would disagree with. I believe that an initial test for truth would consist of outside/empirical evidence that, even though would be colored by the nuanced eye of the one who has an opposing world-view, would show the person in the 'right' world-view that it is indeed right. The facts which are interpreted by the world-view which is correct does not color the facts at all because that is the way in which they should be interpreted. You might be trying to say that our job, as apologists, is to point to the inconsistency between their interpretation of the facts with how they justify their interpretations. Evidential apologetics would correct the interrelations between the former and the latter, and TAG would attack whatever the arguer would use as justification for the facts he/she interprets. In conclusion, TAG is a good apologetic method for finding inconsistencies with other world-views, but seems to be insufficient, by itself, to establish the veracity of the world-view by which you attack others. I would equate the veracity of our world-view by utilizing evidence and through the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit, so that my presuppositions would be rationally justified.

matt

Ryokan

February 7th 2003, 02:30 PM

pretend for a second, someone, you are a really dumb TW poster named after a buddhist monk, and you can't even begin to understand the arguement being laid out herein. Now if you would please try to explain it to yourself, with those assumptions, I'd be greatful :help:

TheFiveSolas

February 8th 2003, 12:05 AM

Ryokan,
The argument in a nutshell is this.

Only the Christian worldview, as outlined in Scripture (which includes all that is revealed about God, man, ethics, the nature of the world in which we live, etc.), provides an intelligible foundation for understanding (making any human experience meaningful). The reason for this is that only the Christian God is personal, both transcendent and immanent, triune, sovereign, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, rational, logical, consistent, just, eternal, unchanging in His nature, etc. Only a being such as the Bible describes can provide the necessary preconditions for everything from mathematics to love.

For example, because God is triune and personal we have a rational foundation for asserting/believing that love exists and is something more than fixed biochemical reactions. Because God is sovereign and providentially controls all events we have good reason for asserting that nature is rational and acts in such a way that physical events can be studied and understood. Because God has revealed that we are created in His image we have good reason for affirming the dignity of man, the freedom of our will, the ethical imperative to think rationally and logically. Because God's nature is inherently logical and rational we have rational justification for asserting that the laws of logic and reason are objective and universally binding rather than being relative from person to person. Because God is a non-physical being we have rational grounds for asserting that non-physical things such as LAWS of logic, numbers (mathematics), etc. exist and are real. Because God is triune, there exists an EQUAL ULTIMACY between the ONE and the MANY, this provides the basis for mathematics, categorizations, etc. (I can elaborate further on this if anyone would like me to). Because God is inherently good and just, we have good reason for asserting that ethical norms are unchanging, objective, and binding upon everyone.

The list goes on and on.

Now, many non-Christians (atheists or followers of other religions) assert the truthfulness of some of the above BUT, and here is the main difference, they can give no rational justification for believing so.

For example, if a Muslim was to assert that they believe God is loving I would point out that their view of God rules this out as a possibility. The reason is that the Islamic view of God says that God is NOT triune but instead is an ABSOLUTE ONE. Love requires a subject and and object. If God is ABSOLUTELY ONE, then there is no subject-object from which to derive love in the "time" before He created the universe. Therefore, God could NOT be eternally and inherently loving if God is an absolute one. Neither would He be inherently personal. Another critique of the Islamic view of God is that they hold to the doctrine of Tanzih, which asserts that God, who is eternal, CANNOT be spoken of in any way by a language that is tied to a CHANGING creation. Therefore, it necessarily follows that such a God cannot be spoken of, or described, in human terms. This means that the Qur'an CANNOT be what it claims to be, namely a revelation of what Allah is like.

Hope that helps

Brian

February 9th 2003, 11:26 PM

Hello 5 Solas!

I am studying presuppositional apologetics and have read much of Bahnsen, Frame, VanTil, and Clark. I am enjoying this thread. However, I think it is not as easy as you have made it out to be in your last post. For instance...

Love requires a subject and and object. If God is ABSOLUTELY ONE, then there is no subject-object from which to derive love in the "time" before He created the universe. Therefore, God could NOT be eternally and inherently loving if God is an absolute one.

Why can't someone argue that they love themselves, and therefore their "object" is themself? Why can't an absolutely one God "love" himself? The Bible certainly implies that we do in fact love ourselves. We are commanded to "love" our neighbor as we "love" ourselves. It does not necessarily follow that the subject and object must be different.

The transcendental argument is powerful, but if you run into an astute individual, they will eat your lunch if you don't know some of the finer points concerning philosophy. For example, the Christian world-view assumes a transcendant God, from which we can then accout for the laws of logic (i.e. they are the way God thinks.) However, why can't we assume the transcendental nature of logic?

Here is another issue, the transcendental argument claims that Christianity is the only consistent world-view that can account for the laws of logic, science, and ethics. Could it be possible to come up with a system that is consistent, and could explain our universe, but yet differ from Christianity? From a strickly hypothetical viewpoint, it is possible. In other words, the transcendental argument does not preclude the possibility of any other world-view from being able to answer these questions. It only arguably precludes all the world-views that we know of up to this point. Of course, you might argue that is all we need to do.

These are just some thoughts that might spark more thoughts.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. You and I might have discussed "Antinomianism" on the Charismatic Reformed Journel web site about 6 months ago. Was that you?

TheFiveSolas

February 10th 2003, 12:09 AM

Matt,
I'd like to address (and challenge) a few of your points.

Also, I would like to see this shift the effectiveness more towards Christianity's cousins: Judism and Islam. Let's start with what you say about Islam:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"from an epistemological perspective these "sacred" books are not and cannot be anything like what the Bible claims for itself, namely, to be the Personal communication and infallible verbal revelation from the only living, completely sovereign, and all-knowing Creator."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this false on two counts: 1. From my reading of Islam and Judaism, they both claim to have the a. very words of Allah encased within the text of the Quaran and b. the very Old Testament which Christianity even accepts as words from God. 2. Also, it doesn't seem that your conclusion follows from your premises. Just because the Bible 'claim's' to be the spoken word of God, doesn't mean it is. Again, that seems to be beggin the question.

After I wrote what you quoted above I said to myself, "Self, you are going to need to clarify that!"

The point I was trying to make was simply that IF a text doesn't claim to be a revelation from God, then it cannot be used as a valid epistemological foundation for knowing the nature of reality, etc. Of the books I listed none make the claim for themselves that the Bible makes for itself, therefore, by their own admission, they cannot constitute a valid authority (or source) for knowledge.

With reference to Islam and Judaism you are correct to point out that they are two examples claiming divine "authorship" for their respective "holy" books. This gives the impression that they can "compete" with Christianity as a revelational epistemology. I will be quick to point out that this only APPEARS to be the case because BOTH attempt to piggy-back on God's revelation all the while denying what it says. Let me explain what I mean.

Judaism shares the Old Testament with Christianity. However, I will point out that modern Judaism's view of God is inconsistent with their professed holy book. For example, they deny the concept of sacrificial atonement for sins (which I would point out is THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE Old Testament) and thus the redemption spoken of by God. In other words, they have separated themselves from the Biblical method of atonement for one's sins. In addition, they deny the scriptural promise of a Messiah that would be rejected by the nation of Israel (Isaiah 53) and also deny that the Messiah would come prior to the destruction of the 2nd Temple (Daniel 9). Also, their view of God is, like Islam, unitarian. This means they deny that God is inherently pluralistic, but rather is an absolute unity/one. I've already detailed the problems with this view, namely that a God that is an absolute one is a God that can't account for love, nor can He be inherently personal (see my previous post on Islam for some reasons why).

Mattballman wrote:
Let me ask you this question: Is it possible to be internally inconsistent within a given world-view and at the same time be rationally justified during your inconsistency? Since the Hindu's have no choice but live in the world that the Biblical God made then no matter how the Hindu lives the dogmas of his belief, he/she will be rationally justified in the actions, since their living in a rational world.

That was an excellent question and shows that you are beginning to grasp TAG. You correctly assert that Hindus live in the world that the Biblical God created and therefore can't change that fact no matter what dogmas their belief system holds to.

Where you made your error is in claiming that, due to them living in God's world, they "will be rationally justified in their actions, since they're living in a rational world." Because Hindus (and ALL non-believers) live in the world the Biblical God created their lives will evidence behavior that is INCONSISTENT with THEIR PROFESSED belief system BUT will be CONSISTENT with what God says in Scripture. Therefore, they are NOT rationally justified ACCORDING TO THEIR belief system BUT would be rationally justified if they ADOPTED the Christian one! In other words, they are presupposing (borrowing) from the Christian worldview.

This leads me to another tremendous (Dr. Bahnsen called it the FOUNDATIONAL epistemological insight) insight of Dr. Van Til, namely the fact that ALL already know that the God of Scripture is the ONLY living God. Romans 1:19 says, "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it known to them." Verse 21 states, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave Him thanks..." Dr. Bahnsen comments on this verse by stating, "The apostle Paul there describes the natural man as gnontes ton theon - "knowing THE God." The verb indicates an intellectual awareness and understanding. The definite article ("the") indicates that this is not a vague awareness of "some kind of supernatural power or person somewhere out there, " but rather a distinct awareness of a familiar or well-defined object of knowledge, namely, the living and true, one and only God."

In Romans 1 the apostle Paul also explains that sinful man "suppresses the truth (about God) in unrighteousness." However, since sinful humanity still live in God's universe, AND know it, they cannot help evidencing this.

This also means that when an unbeliever claims they don't have enough evidence, or don't know whether God exists, etc., they are RIGHT FROM THE START denying the Christian worldview! They are begging the question RIGHT from point one! In addition, this shows that they are NOT approaching the "evidence/facts" from a NEUTRAL starting point.

This is why I, and other presuppositionalists, maintain that you can't simply point to the facts, as if the facts were self-interpreting. Facts are always interpreted within a person's worldview. Until the unbeliever's underlying presuppositions are challenged and shown to be rationally wanting, no fact you throw at them will do any good. They will ALL be reinterpreted (suppressed) to support their sinful worldview.

Lastly, for now, the transcendental argument is, to quote Dr. Bahnsen again, "not simply challenging the unbeliever's reasoning, but in the process also (inherently) challenging the unbeliever's controlling personal attitudes, intellectual behavior, and lifestyle" by "morally convicting the non-Christian for not owning up to the truth that he already knows and cannot escape."

TheFiveSolas

February 10th 2003, 12:12 AM

Brian,
Some excellent questions! I saw them after I finished the above post. Since its now 11pm and I have some reading and studying to do I'll have to put off addressing them until tomorrow. I'm looking forward to your input!
Thanks

:cheers:

Berean

February 10th 2003, 04:16 PM

TheFiveSolas:

This is why I, and other presuppositionalists, maintain that you can't simply point to the facts, as if the facts were self-interpreting. Facts are always interpreted within a person's worldview. Until the unbeliever's underlying presuppositions are challenged and shown to be rationally wanting, no fact you throw at them will do any good. They will ALL be reinterpreted (suppressed) to support their sinful worldview.
Good point 5S.:thumb: That is the very reason I believe presuppositionalism is the correct approach to apologetics,even though TAG can be a hard argument to grasp when you are studying it on your own.I realized that pointing to facts is never enough to convince someone of the truth of Christianity because it is not the facts that are of prime importance, but God's interpretation of those facts. The best example of this is the fact of Jesus' death and resurrection.Just a belief that He died and rose again is not sufficient for salvation.What's important is what we believe His death and resurrection accomplished.Our belief in this must be a presuppositional one based on what God says about it.The simple fact could never prove that our sins are forgiven,that we have been reconciled to God,or that we have received eternal life.

TheFiveSolas

February 11th 2003, 11:22 PM

Brian,
I didn't get the chance to address your questions yesterday but now I have a little time so here goes...

You wrote:
Why can't someone argue that they love themselves, and therefore their "object" is themself? Why can't an absolutely one God "love" himself? The Bible certainly implies that we do in fact love ourselves. We are commanded to "love" our neighbor as we "love" ourselves. It does not necessarily follow that the subject and object must be different.

I should have clarified my assertion. I was referring to love of the interpersonal type. If God is an absolute unity, rather than a triunity, God cannot be said to be inherently loving in the interpersonal sense.

I do agree that we can love ourselves, however such language is quite paradoxical. Who is doing the loving and who is being loved? What does it mean that WE love OURSELVES when the subject and object are the exact same person?

With that said, I'll point out that my critique doesn't hinge on this point. I think the other point I brought up is much more important. Namely, the equal ultimacy of unity and plurality. THE (capitalized for a reason) main problem in philosophy has been the one referred to as the problem of the one and the many. Is everything ultimately one, or ultimately many, ultimately similar or ultimately dissimilar? I would argue that for science, rationality, the ability to speak meaningfully about the world, mathematics, etc. to exist and be intelligible, there needs to be an equal ultimacy between these two metaphysical poles. This equal ultimacy can be rationally accounted for in the intrinsic nature of the triune God alone. All other views tend toward one extreme or the other.

You wrote:
The transcendental argument is powerful, but if you run into an astute individual, they will eat your lunch if you don't know some of the finer points concerning philosophy. For example, the Christian world-view assumes a transcendant God, from which we can then accout for the laws of logic (i.e. they are the way God thinks.) However, why can't we assume the transcendental nature of logic?

We don't simply assume the transcendental nature of logic it is a necessity. A transcendental doesn't refer to those core beliefs that we simply assume, rather it refers to a precondition of intelligibility. Transcendentals are proven by the impossibility of the contrary.

Logic is a transcendental because without it we would be unable to make ANYTHING intelligible. It is therefore a precondition for the intelligibility of anything. Logic, as a transcendental, is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. This means that logic cannot be denied without assuming it in the very attempt at denying it. To paraphrase Aristotle, "if you try to deny the validity of logic you refute yourself the moment you open your mouth."

Now, the problems with trying to make logic THE foundational transcendental are many.

1) The laws of logic are invariant, unchanging. Therefore, IF logic is the foundational transcendental you are left unable to account for freedom of any kind, including freedom of will/choice.
2) The laws of logic are immaterial. Yet, we only EXPERIENCE things that are material. Therefore, we would have NO contact with the laws of logic.
3) The laws of logic are abstract. We on the other hand only EXPERIENCE concrete entities. Therefore, we could NEVER learn about the REAL existence of logical laws through experience.
4) The laws of logic are universals. We have NEVER experienced a UNIVERSAL. Therefore, again our experience would not be sufficient as an epistemological foundation for knowing whether the laws of logic exist or even what they are, how many laws there are, etc.
5) The laws of logic (immaterial, invariant, universal entities) cannot account for the existence of material, changing, contingent, and particular entities such as atoms, brains, people, etc.
6) The laws of logic are impersonal entities. Therefore, then cannot account for personal beings such as ourselves.
7) The laws of logic are impotent in that they cannot create, change, mold, or do anything. This means that they are powerless, in and of themselves, to change someone who is illogical to someone that is.
8) The laws of logic cannot account for WHY some (most?, all?) people violate the laws of logic in many ways and fairly often! :p

I could go on and on. These were simply the first that came to mind.

My main point was that the laws of logic do not (nor can) stand alone as the foundation for one's worldview. On the other hand, the revelation of the Christian God can and does account for the metaphysical foundation for the laws of logic AND all of those things I've just listed above ALONG with an epistemological foundation for KNOWING.

I'm going to eat some dinner and then try to address your third point in my next post.

voidhawk

February 12th 2003, 09:46 AM

A summary of TAN?
Assume what you want to deduce.
Derive some axioms predicated on the assumption you want to deduce.
Deduce from the axioms predicated on the assumption you want to deduce, the assumption you want to deduce.
QED my deductions are true.
:huh:

TheFiveSolas

February 12th 2003, 03:22 PM

Void,
To quote Dr. Van Til, "you cannot choose your presuppositions as you choose hats." In other words, Christian presuppositions are proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Therefore, they are not mere assumptions. They cannot be denied without assuming them. Which means they are the preconditions of intelligibility.

As an example, I've already shown this to be true with the laws of logic. They are a necessary precondition for the intelligibility of ANYTHING you wish to bring up. In addition, the laws of logic would be used/presupposed in any attempt to deny them, making such an attempt self-refuting. The same holds true with the Christian revelation. In fact, it alone can account for the laws of logic and all other necessary preconditions for intelligibility.

Lastly, the unbeliever has no epistemological foundation from which to launch his/her attack.

TheFiveSolas

February 13th 2003, 03:20 AM

Brian,

You wrote:
Here is another issue, the transcendental argument claims that Christianity is the only consistent world-view that can account for the laws of logic, science, and ethics. Could it be possible to come up with a system that is consistent, and could explain our universe, but yet differ from Christianity? From a strickly hypothetical viewpoint, it is possible. In other words, the transcendental argument does not preclude the possibility of any other world-view from being able to answer these questions. It only arguably precludes all the world-views that we know of up to this point. Of course, you might argue that is all we need to do.

This is probably one of the most difficult questions to respond to. I've already touched on it in a previous post, but let me try to defend against it again here.

First, the argument deals with a hypothetical alternative to Christianity. As I've pointed out in an earlier post, this doesn't constitute a rational argument against Christianity (or TAG) since it is purely hypothetical speculation, and arbitrary speculation at that (i.e., it is neither rationally nor evidentially based). I would even go far as to say it is prejudicial conjecture. Christianity isn't preferable and so we'll posit an "unknown god". The bias in such a criticism should be evident. In fact, I see it as evidence of the truth of Romans 1 where we are told that sinful humans "suppress the truth" and instead "exchange the truth of God for a lie."

Second, Christianity, as a worldview, cannot be divorced from the historical events that the Bible records. In another post I corrected the misunderstanding that TAG is an abstract philosophical argument that argues for an abstract worldview. On the contrary, Christianity (the Biblical worldview) maintains that God has involved Himself in the actual history of humanity. He has chosen to reveal Himself through the created order, His real and historical dealings with the nation of Israel, through the inspiration of the writings of Scripture, and ultimately in the very real, historical person of Jesus.

This lifts Christianity out of the abstract realm of human speculation and philosophy and brings it into the realm of concrete history and human experience.

In addition, God's revelation of Himself to man in Scripture provides the epistemological foundation needed for man to KNOW (in the sense of justified true belief) anything. (Note: Scripture does NOT present itself as man's speculations about God but rather as God's revealing of Himself to man by condescending to our level of understanding)

Most importantly, God's revelation explains man's dilemma and HIS solution! We are in rebellion against our Creator. Our bodies are subject to corruption, our desires are not in keeping with God's Holy Righteous decrees, and our minds devise ways to suppress God's truth at every turn. Only Christianity offers a solution to this dilemma and only Christianity has a solution that is accomplished completely by God. All other "religions" and human "philosophies" make man his own savior through "good works", "love", "education", "psychology", "enlightenment", etc.

Lastly, as I've stated in another post, IF Christianity can account for all of the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of all human experience then it necessarily follows that it must be the ONLY one able to do so. The God revealed in Scripture (i.e., the foundation of the Christian worldview) claims to be the ONLY true God and whose revelation is claimed to be the ONLY one that is true. Therefore if what it says about the nature of reality must be presupposed in order for us to make sense out of any experience, then it necessarily follows that it alone does so.

Hope this is helping!

TheFiveSolas

February 13th 2003, 04:02 AM

Before I hit the sack I want to make a few statements, for Christians reading this Thread, about WHY the presuppositional approach is the only logically consistent AND God-honoring approach to defending the faith.

Christians assert that God is sovereign and thus the final authority in all matters.

Christians assert that the Bible is God's revelation to man and NOT man's speculations about God.

If it is the case that the Bible is God's revelation, (of Himself, the nature of the universe, man's place in the universe, and man's duty to God and neighbor) then it necessarily follows that God's revelation in Scripture is ultimately authoritative. In other words, there is no higher authority than God Himself. The Scripture, being the propositional revelation of God, is logically THE final authority since it is God who is speaking to us through/in Scripture.

Scripture declares that God has revealed Himself to ALL people through what He has created and that He has done so clearly. (Romans 1)

Scripture teaches, as I've pointed out several times, that, due to man's sinful nature, man suppresses the truth about God.

In other words, the problem that unbelievers have is NOT lack of evidence or proof, but rather their SINFUL SUPPRESSION (by means of reinterpretation) of the evidence that God has AMPLY supplied them! Therefore, IF we approach unbelievers with the assumption that they aren't really sure whether God exists, or which God exists, we are FROM THE VERY START denying what Scripture teaches! It's Genesis 3 all over again, "has God really said...?" If you buy into the unbeliever's argument that God hasn't provided enough evidence you can only do so by denying God's Word.

Also, if our approach to "proving" the Bible is by attempting to show the authority of the Bible by means of SOME OTHER authority we are again, from the very start, denying that the Scripture is from God (i.e., the final authority in all matters of faith and morals). To put it as a rhetorical question, what makes Scripture authoritative in what it says, the fact that God inspired it, or that sinful man has approved of what it says? Can God speak authoritatively ONLY after He first passes our test (i.e., submits to OUR authority)?

More on this at a later time...

mattbballman19

February 13th 2003, 12:16 PM

My main point of friction is where you throw out the idea that the Christian can use facts when showing unbelievers the truth of Christianity. Other than that, I agree with your correction of my nuanced view of TAG.

You say,
They are begging the question RIGHT from point one! In addition, this shows that they are NOT approaching the "evidence/facts" from a NEUTRAL starting point.

I see the presuppositional starting point to beg the question of whether the unbeliever is begging the question. You get the validity/truth-value of your presuppositions from God's Word. But how do you know that God's Word is true? It seems that you're begging the question of whether it is true. Appeal to the facts is a way that you can avoid that circle. The possibility of objective interpretation of facts is well summed up by the question that Glenn Miller asks on his site, Christian-thinktank.com:
"What kind of worldview lets you discuss the objectivity of worldviews, including its own?"

He believes that this question reveals the possibility for common ground. He goes on to say this, "If you think about this, you might see the same problem I did...the old 'eyeglasses cemented on' model will not even allow the DETECTION of other worldviews! Everything dissonant will be masked out by the worldview grid... The very fact that we can transcend worldviews long enough and far enough to even discuss or objectify them, indicates that there are at least TEMPORARY Archimedian places to stand...They may shift as we become self-critical of them, but they always afford temporary transcendence and temporary 'freedom'..."

So, from this "temporary archimedian place" we can utilize the possibility of objective interpretation of facts, which would cure your problem of circularity (with showing Christianity to be true, not knowing it to be true).

I see the apostles doing this -- missionary preaching in Acts 2.... I see the preaching in Acts, which is what we today regard as historical/factual apologetics...like the empty tomb...fulfillment of prophecy...miracles done by Jesus and the apostles...Paul appealed to the empty tomb.

In Acts 17, Paul's apologetic concerned the specific truth of Christianity which can only be vindicated by defending Jesus' resurrection as historical fact. Therefore, the Athenian "UNKNOWN GOD" served as the impetus for Paul's Gospel message. Paul here uses "dielegeto" (or "reason"--from "dialegomai") that Drs. Timothy and Barbara Friberg and Dr. Neva Miller, Greek specialists, note its meaning as "to contend, argue, dispute" as well as "speaking to someone in order to convince" (Fribergs & Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 110). That Paul would only be "contextualizing" in the case of the "UNKOWN GOD" only makes sense if Paul is arguing for the truth of his which we know took place just prior to his Athenian meeting of Areopagus.

In Romans 1 the apostle Paul also explains that sinful man "suppresses the truth (about God) in unrighteousness." However, since sinful humanity still live in God's universe, AND know it, they cannot help evidencing this.

You confuse the difference between the general revelation of God and the special revelation of God. The former entails that God is made known via nature and conscience (take caution to not take this and equate the availability of God's existence through reason and facts with knowledge of God himself).

This is why I, and other presuppositionalists, maintain that you can't simply point to the facts, as if the facts were self-interpreting. Facts are always interpreted within a person's worldview.

What about the fact of the unbelievers inconsistency? It's a fact that the unbeliever is being inconsistent with what he/she internally believes and what he/she says out loud and/or lives. TAG points to this FACT and expects that person to understand it.

That's all for now.

matt

voidhawk

February 13th 2003, 01:36 PM

TheFiveSolas:
Void,
To quote Dr. Van Til, "you cannot choose your presuppositions as you choose hats." In other words, Christian presuppositions are proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Therefore, they are not mere assumptions. They cannot be denied without assuming them. Which means they are the preconditions of intelligibility.

No. There are only two presuppositions necessary to provide sufficient basis to explore beyond out own consciences.
1) There is a reality external to out consciousness
2) What we experience with our senses corresponds consistently with events in the external reality.
If you move beyond those you assuming what you want of find. TAG is crippled because it can never move beyond
I have a belief in God.
Therefore God exists.

Brian

February 13th 2003, 06:31 PM

Hello 5 Solas!

I really appreciate your answers and the effort that you have put into this.:thumb:

First, the argument deals with a hypothetical alternative to Christianity.That was not my point. My point was to questions the absolute effectiveness of the proof. The apologetic method of presuppositionalism, as I understand it, is two-fold. Firstly, you point out the inconsistencies of world-views that do not presuppose the Bible, God, etc., and secondly, you demonstrate how the Christian world-view is consistent and can account for these laws. That is, you demonstrate how the laws of logic (epistemology), ethics (morality), and science (uniformity of nature) cannot be accounted for apart from the God of the Bible. Therefore, those who do not presuppose the God of the Bible are found to be inconsistent because they use the very laws that they cannot account for! I find this argument to be very compelling with the exception of the second part of the apologetic. The reasoning that is being used but not articulated seems to be as follows...

Premise: All world-views that are consistent and account for the laws of logic, science, and morality are world-views that are true.
Premise: The Christian world-view is a world-view that is consistent and can account for the laws of logic, science, and morality.
Conclusion: The Christian world-view is true.

However, you claim,IF Christianity can account for all of the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of all human experience then it necessarily follows that it must be the ONLY one able to do so.This is not obvious, and is NOT demonstrated within the presuppositional method. My question can be boiled down to, "On what basis do you claim the implication: If Christianity can account for all of the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of all human experience then it necessarily follows that it must be the only one able to do so?"

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Brian

TheFiveSolas

February 14th 2003, 12:27 AM

mattballman wrote:

My main point of friction is where you throw out the idea that the Christian can use facts when showing unbelievers the truth of Christianity.

I have never thrown out the idea that Christians can use facts when speaking to unbelievers about the truth of Christianity. However, I have pointed out that facts do not speak for themselves. Instead, all facts need to be interpreted and a person's underlying presuppositions will be the lens through which they INTERPRET any fact you present to them. This means that no one is neutral in the way they handle the facts.

For example, I know of a physics professor that accepts that Jesus literally and historically rose from the dead. He finds the evidence quite convincing (i.e., empty tomb, eyewitnesses, etc.). However, his view is that quantum mechanics has "proven" that there are some very strange events that happen in this universe and Jesus' resurrection is just one of them.

The bible teaches that sinful man interprets the facts immorally by choosing to do so APART from God's interpretation of the facts. Therefore, as Christians, we need to heed God's word regarding HOW fallen man will reinterpret the facts as a means of "suppressing the truth of God". When an unbeliever balks at God's interpretation of the facts (Jesus' resurrection was for our justification and not simply an inexplicable quantum event) we need to flesh out their underlying (often unspoken) presuppositions and show how they are false (i.e., cannot be rationally justified).

I'll address your other comments hopefully tomorrow sometime.

Thanks again, I'm enjoying the challenge and the exchange! It helps me to clarify what I believe and why I believe it.

adam.naranjo

February 14th 2003, 01:32 AM

(forgive me for typos, It's late, and i'm not paying attention right now) (I think its funny that I sometimes spell defense with a "C"...its getting to late for this sort of thing)

Apologetics, techinically, is a systematic discourse that defends the the hope that lies within. ('apologia' means more then just defense...If it only meant "defense" it could be logically argued that one could physically fight to defend the Gospel -- That would be a defence of some sort)
Implicit in defence (apologia) is an apeal to authority. A defense without the strength of authoritative 'proof' or an authoritative 'individual' isn't a very good argument. No one wants to make arguments without apealing to some kind of authority.

Now, for many men the FINAL authority is found in empirical evidence.(I'm sure its been discusses alraedy how this is is logically fallacious)

For other men the final authority rests on rational argumentation. (again I'm sure this has also been reduced to absurdity)

There are other various claims to absolute authority.
The fact is that according to scripture most men, when all is said and done, make themselves the final authority...They worship themselves -- the creation rather then the creator.

NOW, on the other hand, the sciprture tells us that we must "SET APART CHRIST AS LORD (AUTHORITY - RULER) IN OUR HEARTS"

Interestingly this scripture comes right before the one partially quoted earlier, "allways be ready to give a 'defence' for the hope that lies within"

The Bible clearly says througout that the triune God is to be the FINAL AUTHORITY of our lives. NOT evidence. This means that we cannot defend Christ's absolute lordship/authority over everything if we argue for Christ's authority from the authority of another thing, like evidence.
THis would be granting EVIDENCE a higher authority then Christ, saying that "I know Christ is the Authroity/Lord because the authority of evidence grants Christ that place"

Christ is LORD becuase He SAYS HE IS.

See, if Christ is the final authority, then He must be a "SELF-ATTESTING AUTHORITY". In other words He is the final authority because he says so. If so, then we have to take Him at His word as the final authority. If we place evidence above Christ as prooving that Christ is Lord, then we are saying that Christ is second in authority to evidence. In other words: If, in the end, CHrist is the Final authority, then we cannot place anything else above his authority by which we grant Christ His authority.
We are to SET APART CHRIST as LORD (or final authority) in our lives (this includes our reasoning...this includes EVERYTHING)

So then, evidence cannot be used to defend Christ, if one wishes to Honor Christ as the LORD/FINAL AUTHORITY in their life.

adam.naranjo

February 14th 2003, 02:12 AM

However.
After saying all that.
I do believe that one can share evidence with an unbeliever in a Christ honoring way, by NOT using the evidence as an apologetic or a 'defence'.

this is another discussion.

mattbballman19

February 16th 2003, 06:16 PM

Five Solas,

If you say that the Christian can use facts when discussing the truth of Christianity, and that these facts are inevitably covered by a given world-view, then what would our justification be in utilizing facts within our evangelism template?

matt

TheFiveSolas

February 18th 2003, 08:12 PM

Matt wrote:

If you say that the Christian can use facts when discussing the truth of Christianity, and that these facts are inevitably covered by a given world-view, then what would our justification be in utilizing facts within our evangelism template?

I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you stated, "...and that these facts are inevitably COVERED by a given worldview..."

I think you are asking is, "what is the point of discussing facts with an unbeliever (which I said presuppositionalists should do) if they will always sinfully REINTERPRET those facts in light of their non-Christian worldview."

There are a couple of reasons why we should do this.

1) All people are created in God's image and are created with the ability to recognize God's truth. Therefore, they are able to understand and see the force of the Christians argument. This is where the "common ground" you spoke of comes from. However, without the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing them to faith, they will (sinfully) suppress that which they know to be true about God.

2) When an unbeliever BALKS at the Christian interpretation of the facts we are then to expose the underlying presuppositions of the unbeliever's worldview so that we can show that they are baseless (without rational foundation).

3) We can even go further by showing how even the concept of FACT cannot be rationally spoken of (accounted for) apart from the Biblical worldview. In other words, when we speak of facts, we are presupposing that facts are RELATED to other facts and do so in a CONSISTENT logical and rational way. We are also presupposing that we are able, as FINITE creatures, to interpret the facts correctly AND objectively. The ONLY interpretation of the facts that can be objective is the ONE that God holds. Therefore, ONLY if God has revealed how brute facts RELATE to each other can we have justification for claiming that ANY fact can be interpreted (or even that ANY fact is actually RELATED to ANY other fact).

As an aside, let me illustrate how facts aren't neutrally interpreted by making an observation about the Creation/Evolution debate.

Both creationists and evolutionists point to facts (i.e., fossil record, the geologic column, dating methods, distant starlight, mutations, etc.). Both sides claim the "facts" support their position. Can this really be true? Can a fact TRULY support BOTH creation and evolution? Not if the law of contradiction is valid (this is another metaphysical presupposition that needs to be accounted for by one's worldview). Either ALL facts support creation OR they support evolution. Or to put it as a hypothetical, IF evolution IS true can it be the case that ANY fact ACTUALLY supports creation? The answer should be obvious. One side OR the other is MISINTERPRETING the facts.

mattbballman19

February 21st 2003, 04:16 PM

Thanks for the clarification Five solas! I still have some questions about the use of facts, but I think we'll just reach an impasse:-) I understand you position much more than I did!

God Bless!

psychopath

February 21st 2003, 05:06 PM

FiveSolas, first let me say that I appreciate what you're doing here. You seem well-schooled on this topic.

I just wanted to play devil's advocate with one point you're making, regarding the laws of logic. You say that they are undeniable, because to deny them is to automatically affirm them. It's a self-contradictory point of view.

However, what if one came at it from this angle:

"Contradictions only exist insofar as logic is valid, and since I deny the existence of the laws of logic, I don't care if my statement is self-contradictory. Therefore, I deny the laws of logic."

Now, granted, once contradictions are allowed into the mix, discourse becomes completely meaningless. But how is it possible to refute someone who, due to their denial of the laws of logic, sees no problem with contradiction?

TheFiveSolas

February 21st 2003, 05:39 PM

psychopath wrote:

"Contradictions only exist insofar as logic is valid, and since I deny the existence of the laws of logic, I don't care if my statement is self-contradictory. Therefore, I deny the laws of logic."

Now, granted, once contradictions are allowed into the mix, discourse becomes completely meaningless. But how is it possible to refute someone who, due to their denial of the laws of logic, sees no problem with contradiction?

Hmm, there are a few ways (off the top of my head) that I would respond to this.

1) The propositional assertion that the laws of logic aren't valid (or don't exist) presupposes the law of non-contradiction. In other words, they are making an assertion that their view of logic is true and its opposite is not. IF they truly believed that contradictions are allowed, they, if they wanted to be consistent with their irrationality, would assert BOTH are true, namely that logic exists AND doesn't exist.

2) Secondly, as you pointed out, in order for any dialogue to be meaningful the law of non-contradiction needs to be valid. So, if someone comes along and asserts otherwise, he/she is refuting themselves in their very attempt at meaningful dialogue. Yet, this very assertion is attempting to make a meaningful point. (Am I being redundant?!) :tongue:

3) If they are admitting that THEIR view reduces everything to absurdity (meaninglessness) I would say speak up, tell the world that absurdity is the end result of such a worldview. In other words, when comparing the hypothetical view outlined above to Christianity, we see that Christianity upholds reason and meaning, whereas the other reduces precludes it. I would then point out that IF they want to be rational they will have to give up their belief system and adopt ours.

Hope my short answer helped!

TheFiveSolas

February 21st 2003, 05:56 PM

psychopath wrote:

FiveSolas, first let me say that I appreciate what you're doing here. You seem well-schooled on this topic.

Thanks for the kind words, however, I VERY AWARE of the fact that I still have much to learn and refine. I'm always studying so that I can find better ways to explain what I view to be the most biblically consistent way of defending the faith. I'm just very thankful to God that He has chosen to redeem and use "cracked pots" like me.

In Him

voidhawk

February 23rd 2003, 08:52 PM

Musing on TAG

To quote a proponent of this argument the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God is

TheFiveSolas wrote

Only the Christian world view, as outlined in Scripture (which includes all that is revealed about God, man, ethics, the nature of the world in which we live, etc.), provides an intelligible foundation for understanding (making any human experience meaningful). The reason for this is that only the Christian God is personal, both transcendent and immanent, triune, sovereign, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, rational, logical, consistent, just, eternal, unchanging in His nature, etc. Only a being such as the Bible describes can provide the necessary preconditions for everything from mathematics to love.

and

Instead, the transcendental method deals with the underlying assumptions that are inherent in any argument, tries to flush them out and get the proponent to provide a rational account of why those assumptions (more correctly presuppositions) are valid. In other words, it attacks the very foundation of the unbeliever's argument in an attempt to show that at CORE they have both feet firmly planted in mid-air!

so lets follow the advice of the Rev Van Till

Will you not go into the basement of your own experience to see what has been gathering there while you were busy here and there with the surface inspection of life? You may be greatly surprised at what you find there.

from Why I Believe in God
By: The Rev. Cornelius Van Til, Ph.D.

and examine the presuppositions that underlay TAG. Let us apply TAG and presuppositionalism to presuppositionalism.

Firstly taken from TheFiveSolas, the Christian world view outlined by Scripture. This is immediately problematic, there is no Christian world view. Many diverse groups of people have read and study what Rev van Til and Dr Greg Bahnsen referred to as Scripture and devised many different belief systems for example, Jehovah’s Witness, Christadelphians, Baptists and Methodists. Some of these have contradictory theology for example God is triune or God is one. There is no way to distinguishing between them on the cortectness or otherwise of there theology within Scripture they all draw on Scripture for there justification, none of them can be subjected to verification within presuppositionalism.

Secondly following on from the above, in must be concluded that Scripture is not authoritive, unambiguous and rational. It supports multiple contradictory interpretations and these diverse beliefs all claim it as there authority.

From these propositions I deduce that the proponents of TAG cannot do :

What everyone needs to do, if they wish to be rational, is to be able to give a rational account for their claim that the world (man, the universe, nature, etc.) acts/exists in a certain way as opposed to another AND they must also be able to give a rational account as to HOW they know this.

Therefore by applying presuppositionalism to itself it has been demonstrated that it is self refuting it has no rational presuppositions on which to basis itself therefore by its own methodology it cannot be used to draw rational conclusions.

Therefore the very world view that under pins TAG the rationality of the Christian world view is shown to be flawed so TAG can not stand.

Brian

February 23rd 2003, 11:44 PM

Hola Cinco Solas!

IF Christianity can account for all of the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of all human experience then it necessarily follows that it must be the ONLY one able to do so.

It is my position that the transcendental argument establishes Christianity as a world-view capable of explaining the world around us. Even more than that, it arguable demonstrates on a case-by-case basis that all other "known" world views are not capable of this. However, it does not necessarily follow that the transcendental argument precludes all possible world views outside of Christianity from being able to explain the world around us in a consistent manner. How do you support your claim that it does?

Sincerely,

Brian

TenDimensions

February 24th 2003, 04:14 PM

In my humble opinion this thread hasn't had enough posts from atheists so here goes. :smile:

01-28-2003 @ 12:24 AM
Blake Reas:

Logic
Logic is grounded in God's being for it is part of his nature. God cannot become illogical or make 2+2=5 it is against his very nature so God is necessary for Logic. If the non believer wants to debate this they must give an account of where knowledge comes from.

I imagine everyone would agree this is a really deep, metaphysical subject - where does knowledge come from? For that I would imagine we first need to tackle exactly what reality is since "reality" is actually a subset of knowledge, correct? Meaning, I can have "knowledge" of a lot of different topics that are not necessarily anything other than pure imagination and not based on reality at all. Given that idea then "knowledge" doesn't necessarily have to have any basis in reality and any such "knowledge" that can not be provably based on reality can never be more than pure imagination. Please note, this does not imply in any way that this knowledge is any less "real" to the person. I'm using a rather broad definition of the word imagination here.

Some of you may then immediately think of the famous idea put forward by Carl Sagan in Contact (I'm sure that wasn't the first place the idea came up) involving the believer asking the non-believer to "prove" that she loved her father.

Of course she can not prove this - neither can any of us. Does that mean it's not "real"? Certainly not. But what it does mean is that it exists in her mind and in her mind only. The reason I'm going down this path at all is to attempt to make a clear distinction between knowledge that is based on physical reality and knowledge that is based on nothing more than the constructs our brain produces.

This is precisely the thing that science tries to keep separate and distinct. Science is the quest for the kind of knowledge that is rooted in the physical world only because that is the only kind of knowledge we can be absolutely sure exists. Anything else, like it or not and regardless of how real it may feel to an individual person, is not knowledge that can be demonstrably provable. Case in point - is the love you feel for one person the same love you feel for another? Do they love you back the exact same way? Is there really any hope that you could effectively communicate those differences?

So, yes, I'll argue that the above assertion is not only false, but the idea that "knowledge" is anything more than our own invention that requires an outside cause is in and of itself a false presupposition. If there were no humans to do the thinking there would be no knowledge - unless you already believe that there is a God.

To answer the question above: Knowledge comes in two flavors - the kind demonstrably rooted in the shared physical realm between two self-aware beings and the kind that exists soley in the constructs of the brain. If you want to discuss God being the latter type of knowledge - well, now you're looking to discuss the nature of consciousness, which is completely different from knowledge. At the very least, as Plato described in the Allegory of the Cave we really are just trying to discern the nature of reality by examining the shadows cast on the back of the cave without being able to turn around and see it for ourselves.

Science
You must presume a traditonal view of God's Providence and foreknowledge for this. The fact that the unbeliever has no grounds for believing in the inductive principle. We ultimately don't know if the sun will rise tommorow or if things happen from day today the unbeliever must assume this.

First off, I'd be interested in hearing why the unbeliever has no grounds for believing in proof by induction - that's a known and proven mathematical concept - but that's beside the point.

As I mentioned above, science is the set of methods and principles by which knowledge based on the physical world is acquired. It is nothing more than a human invention in an attempt to get at the most common type of "truth" there is - the one based on the physical world. Precisely because a large set of our knowledge is fantasy, science has set out to separate those two kinds of knowledge. But they are both equally important because without imagination we would not have invention. But science draws a distinct and clear line between the two and it's done pretty well for itself so far. The proof is in the applied science resulting in the technology we see today. There can not be any doubt that science is the single best means at acquiring knowledge based on reality.

The unbeliever, as you call him, does assume the sun will rise tomorrow, but not based on any unreasonable assumptions. Science deals in nothing but probabilities precisely because at the heart of science is the inherent understanding that truth is ultimately unknowable and that the best one can hope for is an extremely high likelihood that something is. Therefore, the unbeliever "plays the odds", if you will, and accepts that the sun will come up tomorrow based on the extremely high probability that it will. There is no need for a Master with a master plan at all. It is highly probable the sun will rise tomorrow and that gravity will not suddenly turn itself of and allow us all to float off into space.

For instance some "miracles" are brought about by God using the natural order (Ie. moses at the Sea of Reeds).

The nature of miracles is another subject entirely - although I'm not getting into it right now, I don't want to seem like I'm dodging it either.

Morality
This is much the same as logic.

Morality (in its common definition, remember language is extremely limiting and poor) has very little to do with logic. Pure logic could dictate that once a person can no longer contribute to society in some useful way (regardless of how small the contribution may be) that person should be eliminated. At least, that's one way to make the logical argument. Use of logic alone does not always guarantee the same outcome - perhaps that alone is demonstration that Logic can not be proof of God - how can a concept based on God produce two polar opposite results?

Another equally valid logical argument is that should you ever become unable to contribute to society you would not want to be coldly eliminated, so then you should not do it to others. This is of course, the Golden Rule (something it should be noted did not originate with the Bible).

And so, again, without any higher being and using only the following two presuppositions - "I think therefore I am" and the assumption that those who are like me also are as self-aware as myself (something I sometimes wonder about regarding certain drivers on the Thruway :rofl:) I can apply the Golden Rule in purely atheistic terms. Any other morality is extremely subjective and falls under the type of knowledge that resides completely within our brains.

Goodness, holiness, justice etc.

All extremely, extremely subjective things whose nature have been questioned since men could begin thinking! Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - these guys all tackled these complex concepts a very, very long time ago - before a monotheistic God was ever dreamt up.

Proof that these are subjective concepts? Provide any example of an action and I can change the situation such that the action appears to be the exact opposite - the person who steals a loaf of bread is a thief until it is known they are trying to feed their starving family. This is arguably the single most important concept Socrates is known for! Going around and questioning the very concepts of goodness, holiness, and justice that his fellow contemporary wise men seemed to have locked down.

This is just my attempt at presenting an atheistic viewpoint that I felt was lacking on this thread. I would love to discuss this further with any of you.

----
"The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates

voidhawk

February 24th 2003, 07:47 PM

A response to a post by Socrates in the Young Earth Christians /How old is the Earth Thread in Science /Archeology.

Socrates wrote

No we are not, because our presuppositions are both internally consistent and externally consistent in that they provide a rational framework to make sense of the world.

Not if they involve something like this they don't.

Only a being such as the Bible describes can provide the necessary preconditions for everything from mathematics to love.

I have examined this, as presumably has BlakeReas,and we disagree with you.

Im sure you do. Would you care elucidate?

You know naught of which you speak. Christian presuppositional apologetics starts with unprovable propositions called axioms, but so does every philosophical system.

Indeed they do but Christian presuppositional apologetics has to have some involving

Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.
Why I Believe in God
By: The Rev. Cornelius Van Til, Ph.D.

To assume that something like this is axiomatic, is dare I say it question begging.

I dont know as much as I would like but that is a good reason for posting, you get the benefit of hard criticism in a in a place where few errors go unnoticed, as Im sure you can verify. As a bonus sometimes you can learn something.

The other points you raised regarding validation etc, can not be addressed apart from the issue of presuppositional. According to its methodology, which Im assuming you still support, you dont have a basis to offer a rational critique.

Blake Reas

February 24th 2003, 11:21 PM

02-24-2003 @ 08:14 PM
TenDimensions:

In my humble opinion this thread hasn't had enough posts from atheists so here goes. :smile:

I imagine everyone would agree this is a really deep, metaphysical subject - where does knowledge come from? For that I would imagine we first need to tackle exactly what reality is since &quot;reality&quot; is actually a subset of knowledge, correct? Meaning, I can have &quot;knowledge&quot; of a lot of different topics that are not necessarily anything other than pure imagination and not based on reality at all. Given that idea then &quot;knowledge&quot; doesn't necessarily have to have any basis in reality and any such &quot;knowledge&quot; that can not be provably based on reality can never be more than pure imagination. Please note, this does not imply in any way that this knowledge is any less &quot;real&quot; to the person. I'm using a rather broad definition of the word imagination here.

Some of you may then immediately think of the famous idea put forward by Carl Sagan in Contact (I'm sure that wasn't the first place the idea came up) involving the believer asking the non-believer to &quot;prove&quot; that she loved her father.

Of course she can not prove this - neither can any of us. Does that mean it's not &quot;real&quot;? Certainly not. But what it does mean is that it exists in her mind and in her mind only. The reason I'm going down this path at all is to attempt to make a clear distinction between knowledge that is based on physical reality and knowledge that is based on nothing more than the constructs our brain produces.

This is precisely the thing that science tries to keep separate and distinct. Science is the quest for the kind of knowledge that is rooted in the physical world only because that is the only kind of knowledge we can be absolutely sure exists. Anything else, like it or not and regardless of how real it may feel to an individual person, is not knowledge that can be demonstrably provable. Case in point - is the love you feel for one person the same love you feel for another? Do they love you back the exact same way? Is there really any hope that you could effectively communicate those differences?

So, yes, I'll argue that the above assertion is not only false, but the idea that &quot;knowledge&quot; is anything more than our own invention that requires an outside cause is in and of itself a false presupposition. If there were no humans to do the thinking there would be no knowledge - unless you already believe that there is a God.

To answer the question above: Knowledge comes in two flavors - the kind demonstrably rooted in the shared physical realm between two self-aware beings and the kind that exists soley in the constructs of the brain. If you want to discuss God being the latter type of knowledge - well, now you're looking to discuss the nature of consciousness, which is completely different from knowledge. At the very least, as Plato described in the Allegory of the Cave we really are just trying to discern the nature of reality by examining the shadows cast on the back of the cave without being able to turn around and see it for ourselves.

First off, I'd be interested in hearing why the unbeliever has no grounds for believing in proof by induction - that's a known and proven mathematical concept - but that's beside the point.

As I mentioned above, science is the set of methods and principles by which knowledge based on the physical world is acquired. It is nothing more than a human invention in an attempt to get at the most common type of &quot;truth&quot; there is - the one based on the physical world. Precisely because a large set of our knowledge is fantasy, science has set out to separate those two kinds of knowledge. But they are both equally important because without imagination we would not have invention. But science draws a distinct and clear line between the two and it's done pretty well for itself so far. The proof is in the applied science resulting in the technology we see today. There can not be any doubt that science is the single best means at acquiring knowledge based on reality.

The unbeliever, as you call him, does assume the sun will rise tomorrow, but not based on any unreasonable assumptions. Science deals in nothing but probabilities precisely because at the heart of science is the inherent understanding that truth is ultimately unknowable and that the best one can hope for is an extremely high likelihood that something is. Therefore, the unbeliever &quot;plays the odds&quot;, if you will, and accepts that the sun will come up tomorrow based on the extremely high probability that it will. There is no need for a Master with a master plan at all. It is highly probable the sun will rise tomorrow and that gravity will not suddenly turn itself of and allow us all to float off into space.

The nature of miracles is another subject entirely - although I'm not getting into it right now, I don't want to seem like I'm dodging it either.

Morality (in its common definition, remember language is extremely limiting and poor) has very little to do with logic. Pure logic could dictate that once a person can no longer contribute to society in some useful way (regardless of how small the contribution may be) that person should be eliminated. At least, that's one way to make the logical argument. Use of logic alone does not always guarantee the same outcome - perhaps that alone is demonstration that Logic can not be proof of God - how can a concept based on God produce two polar opposite results?

Another equally valid logical argument is that should you ever become unable to contribute to society you would not want to be coldly eliminated, so then you should not do it to others. This is of course, the Golden Rule (something it should be noted did not originate with the Bible).

And so, again, without any higher being and using only the following two presuppositions - &quot;I think therefore I am&quot; and the assumption that those who are like me also are as self-aware as myself (something I sometimes wonder about regarding certain drivers on the Thruway :rofl:) I can apply the Golden Rule in purely atheistic terms. Any other morality is extremely subjective and falls under the type of knowledge that resides completely within our brains.

All extremely, extremely subjective things whose nature have been questioned since men could begin thinking! Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - these guys all tackled these complex concepts a very, very long time ago - before a monotheistic God was ever dreamt up.

Proof that these are subjective concepts? Provide any example of an action and I can change the situation such that the action appears to be the exact opposite - the person who steals a loaf of bread is a thief until it is known they are trying to feed their starving family. This is arguably the single most important concept Socrates is known for! Going around and questioning the very concepts of goodness, holiness, and justice that his fellow contemporary wise men seemed to have locked down.

This is just my attempt at presenting an atheistic viewpoint that I felt was lacking on this thread. I would love to discuss this further with any of you.

----
&quot;The unexamined life is not worth living.&quot; -Socrates

WOW! I posted that a long time ago and finally someone wants to thump my head on it!:rofl:

To be honest with you I am just beginning to read on TAG. I do not think I am adequate to debate it with you!:thumb: Just being honest.

In Christ,
Blake

Blake Reas

February 24th 2003, 11:34 PM

Morality
This is much the same as logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morality (in its common definition, remember language is extremely limiting and poor) has very little to do with logic. Pure logic could dictate that once a person can no longer contribute to society in some useful way (regardless of how small the contribution may be) that person should be eliminated. At least, that's one way to make the logical argument. Use of logic alone does not always guarantee the same outcome - perhaps that alone is demonstration that Logic can not be proof of God - how can a concept based on God produce two polar opposite results?

I think you misuderstood me, I did not mean that Logic is the same is logic. I meant that Morality is grounded in God's being. Sorry you misunderstood me!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodness, holiness, justice etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All extremely, extremely subjective things whose nature have been questioned since men could begin thinking! Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - these guys all tackled these complex concepts a very, very long time ago - before a monotheistic God was ever dreamt up.

You lack a knowledge of History, the origin of Monotheism and Yawhism in the ANE is a hotly debated issue. The Jews believed in one God way before Socrates was even thought of.
Even so, they could think like because God has engraved the Law on our hearts. I figured I would comment since I am interested in the Origins of YWHWism. This would be a good discussion for the Archaeology forum! Thanks for the idea.

Proof that these are subjective concepts? Provide any example of an action and I can change the situation such that the action appears to be the exact opposite - the person who steals a loaf of bread is a thief until it is known they are trying to feed their starving family. This is arguably the single most important concept Socrates is known for! Going around and questioning the very concepts of goodness, holiness, and justice that his fellow contemporary wise men seemed to have locked down.

I was taught that there is a Higherarchy of Morals how that conflicts with Christianity, you must explain that. I do not know of any Theist who has said that certain events are immoral in one situation and moral in another. When you said that stealing bread is not wrong to feed your starving family, I disagree. Oh well, I probably made myself look silly but, I am learning so talk to you later!

[qoute]This is just my attempt at presenting an atheistic viewpoint that I felt was lacking on this thread. I would love to discuss this further with any of you.[/quote]

Thanks a lot, I like to read the opposing point of view even if I don't agree with it!

In His Sovereign Grace,
Blake

TheFiveSolas

February 25th 2003, 01:32 AM

Brian wrote:

It is my position that the transcendental argument establishes Christianity as a world-view capable of explaining the world around us. Even more than that, it arguable (sic) demonstrates on a case-by-case basis that all other "known" world views are not capable of this. However, it does not necessarily follow that the transcendental argument precludes all possible world views outside of Christianity from being able to explain the world around us in a consistent manner. How do you support your claim that it does?

I think the key words in your question/assertion are "all POSSIBLE world views". In other words, you are asking how presuppositionalists can justifiably assert that TAG proves Christianity to be the ONLY valid worldview when it can only be said to have refuted a finite number of competitors.

Mike Butler's (Bahnsen's leading student) comments help to answer this challenge.

Mike Butler writes (in The Standard Bearer, pg 116):

...as Forster has pointed out, TAs (Transcendental Arguments) and, by implication, TAG do not set out to provide a uniqueness proof by refuting an indefinite or infinite number of worldviews. Rather, the proof is provided by refuting the negation of the conceptual scheme or worldview that one is attempting to establish. It subjects the non-Christian worldview to an internal critique and shows that, on its own terms, it is contradictory, arbitrary, and cannot provide sufficient preconditions for experience (intelligibility)."

Here Butler points out that TAG doesn't merely refute individual worldviews, but rather ENTIRE "conceptual scheme(s) or worldview(s)."

He continues (also on pg 116):

What, then, is the nature of the non-Christian worldview? Simply put, ALL (fivesolas' emphasis) non-Christian systems presuppose that experience can be accounted for on AUTONOMOUS (fivesolas' emphasis) lines. The non-Christian worldviews share the common feature that experience can be made sense of independently of God and His revelatory word. Thus, all non-Christian worldviews deny the Creator-creature distinction, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the biblical doctrine of man as being created as God's image. They deny the Fall and the noetic effects of sin. They deny the necessity of Christ's redeeming work for not only personal salvation but also the salvation of the human intellect. They also deny the necessity of divine revelation, the foundation of all of these doctrines.

From this we can see that Van Til is correct, "We have constantly sought to bring out that ALL (fivesolas' emphasis) forms of antitheistic thinking can be reduced to one."

What Butler (following both Van Til and Bahnsen) is pointing out is the fact that ALL non-Christian worldviews are in essence the same type of worldview/conceptual scheme (i.e., one that assumes the autonomy of man and denies the NECESSITY of God's redemption and revelation). Since that is the case it follows that if you refute one you've refuted them all.

Bahnsen elaborates (in Van Til's Apologetic, pg. 489):

Despite "family squabbles" and secondary deviations among unregenerate men in their thinking, they are UNITED (fivesolas' emphasis) at the basic level in setting aside the Christian conception of God. The indirect manner of proving the Christian position is thus to exhibit the intelligibility of reasoning, science, morality, etc., within the context of biblical presuppositions... and then to make an internal criticism of the presuppositions of autonomous thought (IN WHATEVER FORM IT IS PRESENTLY BEING DISCUSSED) (fivesolas' emphasis) in order to show that it destroys the possibility of proving, understanding, or communicating anything.

In other words, ALL non-Christian worldviews are merely variations on a common theme, human autonomy. This is the reason why they fail to provide a foundation for intelligibility. This is also the reason why the proponent of TAG doesn't have to refute all "possible" worldviews. There are really only two worldviews, the Christian (which you've admitted provides the preconditions for experience, science, rationality, etc.), and that of human autonomy (in whatever form it is presently being discussed).

Butler sums it up this way (in The Standard Bearer, pg. 117):

Thus, the Christian apologist may boldly assert that without an absolute personal being as the foundation of all things, there is no possibility of ethics. Without the ontological Trinity, as the fount of all being, there is no possibility of unifying the particulars of human experience. Without the combined doctrines of the Trinity and man being God's image bearer, there is no possibility of predication and, thus, language. Without the doctrine of God's sovereignty and providence, there is no ground for inductive logic and science. Without a good and all-powerful God who creates both man and the natural realm there is no reason to believe that one's senses are reliable. From these considerations it is clear why TAG is often described as an argument that proves the impossiblity of the contrary. There is, at bottom, ONE (fivesolas' emphasis) non-Christian worldview, and this worldview is easily reduced to absurdity. Forster's insight is relevant at this point. When one version of the non-Christian worldview is refuted, the general non-Christian worldview is refuted, for all of them are variations on a common theme.

Brian,
Thanks for the question, it helped me to flesh out an answer to one of the toughest objections brought against TAG.

voidhawk

February 25th 2003, 10:37 AM

Hmm
Very interesting

TheFiveSolas wrote
In other words, ALL non-Christian worldviews are merely variations on a common theme, human autonomy. This is the reason why they fail to provide a foundation for intelligibility. This is also the reason why the proponent of TAG doesn't have to refute all "possible" worldviews.

But
Because Scripture is incoherent, by this I mean it supports multiple contradictory sets of beliefs and can be used to justify them all, the theist is free to choose which set of beliefs best suits the needs of their personality. There is no difference in this case between those who choose beliefs based on Scripture and those who don’t they are all examples of human autonomy.

So if you believe in TAG you have just refuted all conceptual scheme(s) based on Scripture including those that refer to themselves as Christian.
:eek:
Neat trick.

TheFiveSolas

February 25th 2003, 01:04 PM

Void,
The main problem with your attempted critique is that your worldview cannot account for coherence, rationality, or logic.

In other words, your "refutation" wouldn't even be able to get started IF your view of the world were true. Or to put it another way, you are refuting yourself when you make the claim that rationality, coherence, or logic exist.

As proof of my above assertions I would merely ask you to give an account of what the laws of logic are in your worldview. Are they universal and binding on everyone? Are they material or immaterial?

How can you, an atheist, make good on the claim that UNIVERSAL LAWS exist in a world made up solely of particulars?

If it is your view that the ONLY things that exist are material things, then how can you even imply that logic or reason are universal? Matter is particular (confined to a certain size, shape, mass, etc.) and NOT universal.

How can you, an atheist, make good on the claim that people are (morally) bound to be logical and coherent?

On what rational basis can you, as an atheist, make the claim that the world is both purposeless (not designed) and random, and yet also claim that it is coherent?

How can you rationally justify your belief that your senses are reliable and that your brain function CORRECTLY brings you into contact with an external world? Remember, in your view, your brain function is the result of millions of years of accidents, not design.

Void, the fact remains, your worldview cannot rationally account for any of the above.

Brian

February 25th 2003, 03:24 PM

Hello 5 Solas!

I still don't think you have answered the claim. I am reading Butler's quote slightly different than you are....as Forster has pointed out, TAs (Transcendental Arguments) and, by implication, TAG do not set out to provide a uniqueness proof by refuting an indefinite or infinite number of worldviews. (emphasis Brian's)What this tells me is that TAG's purpose is not to absolutely prove the "uniqueness" of Christianity.Rather, the proof is provided by refuting the negation of the conceptual scheme or worldview that one is attempting to establish.This tells me that the purpose of TAG is to refute on a case-by-case basis the other's position while establishing Christianity. In other words, Butler is saying that the purpose of TAG is not to establish Christianity as the only possible world view (including all theoretical world views) that is consistent with reality, but to establish Christianity as a world view that is consistent, and to critique the world view brought before it. No more, no less. I can go throught the rest of your quotes and show how my interpretation is consistent, but for the sake of brevity, I will leave it at this point and await your comments.

Thanks!

Brian

TheFiveSolas

February 25th 2003, 05:10 PM

Brian,
You are reading Butler in a different way, however it is a misreading.

Butler stated,

...as Forster has pointed out, TAs (Transcendental Arguments) and, by implication, TAG do not set out to provide a uniqueness proof by refuting an indefinite or infinite number of worldviews. Rather, the proof is provided..."

"...the proof..." Which proof? The one spoken of in the last sentence, namely "a uniqueness proof".

Butler continues,

...by refuting the negation of the conceptual scheme or worldview that one is attempting to establish.

What is Mike contrasting here? A uniqueness proof versus a non-uniqueness one? Or the method? The answer is that he is addressing the method of TAG's proof of uniqueness. It is NOT one whereby an infinite number of worldviews is compared and found wanting, but "rather, the proof is provided by refuting the negation of the conceptual scheme or worldview (in this case, Christianity) that one is attempting to establish."

In addition, the entire section of The Standard Bearer that I quoted from is one in which Mike is defending TAG against the charge that it doesn't offer a uniqueness proof of Christianity. It would indeed be strange if he was defending against this charge by affirming that it is true.

Therefore, all I can tell you is that you have misread him. Either way, though, the uniqueness proof has been given. All non-Christian worldviews are mere variations on the same theme (human autonomy). Which means that when you defeat one (as you've admitted TAG does) you've effectively defeated them all.

Brian

February 25th 2003, 05:21 PM

Hello 5 Solas!

I probably did misread him, and when I get a chance I will study your reply. Thanks for your time!

Brian

TheFiveSolas

February 25th 2003, 05:38 PM

Brian,
Anytime
Thanks again for your questions, they've given me the opportunity to explain TAG for the benefit of others and to clarify where I need to.
:thumb:

J. J. Ramsey

February 25th 2003, 08:37 PM

From what I've understood of skeptical atheists, they take such things as logic and objective reality as essentially self-evident, and from that standpoint they would argue that, yes, their worldview is coherent enough to mount arguments that attack the Christian worldview. How would TAG answer this?

TheFiveSolas

February 26th 2003, 12:40 AM

JJR,
Here goes my second attempt at answeringing your question (the first time I wrote it, finished, then clicked "Send" and the server froze :argh: )

Yes, (most) atheists do take things like logic and an objective reality for granted. And yes, they think that by appealing to "logic" and "objective reality" that proves that their worldview is "coherent enough" to mount attacks against Christianity. However, merely asserting that "logic" and an "objective reality" are "self-evident" hardly constitutes a rational account of such things.

For one thing, if I merely look around these forums I see atheists claiming that Christians are illogical, AND I also see Christians making the same claim with regards to atheists. BOTH groups are appealing to "logic" and claiming the other side is obviously (read: self-evidently) violating logical laws. Therefore, it certainly seems that the claim that "logic" is self-evident doesn't match our experience.

The real question is which worldview, if any, can make appeals to logic meaningful?

When an atheist makes an appeal to logic they are implying that there exists REAL, UNIVERSALLY BINDING standards by which arguments can be judged. But, how can an atheist make good on this claim (belief)? In the atheistic worldview, only particulars exist (i.e., matter/energy is FINITE). Yet, the appeal to logic is an appeal to a UNIVERSAL.

In addition, the laws of logic cannot be said to be material (consisting of matter or energy). Yet, the atheist asserts that ONLY matter/energy exists.

Next I would have to ask, what gives the laws of logic their AUTHORITY? When the atheist appeals to logic they are implying that we SHOULD/OUGHT to be logical. This is an appeal to authority AND also to ethics. However, atheists cannot rationally account for an OBJECTIVE form of either. Authority is a PERSONAL attribute, yet the laws of logic are impersonal. Ethics deals with how we OUGHT to behave, and again the atheist is unable to offer a foundation for objective universally binding and authoritative ethical norms.

With regards to "objective reality" we find that the atheist again is unable to account for such an assertion/belief. The term objectivity refers to a vantage point that does NOT involve ignorance of the facts involved NOR fallible subjective interpretation of those facts.

Atheists, by denying the revelation of the all-knowing, infallible God, effectively cut themselves off from the ONLY foundation for KNOWING reality. In other words, the ONLY vantage point that is TRULY OBJECTIVE is that of the God that created ALL facts and therefore KNOWS exhaustively and infallibly how EVERY fact RELATES to all other facts.

voidhawk

February 26th 2003, 10:40 AM

02-25-2003 @ 05:04 PM
TheFiveSolas:

Void,
The main problem with your attempted critique is that your worldview cannot account for coherence, rationality, or logic.

In other words, your "refutation" wouldn't even be able to get started IF your view of the world were true. Or to put it another way, you are refuting yourself when you make the claim that rationality, coherence, or logic exist.

As proof of my above assertions I would merely ask you to give an account of what the laws of logic are in your worldview. Are they universal and binding on everyone? Are they material or immaterial?

How can you, an atheist, make good on the claim that UNIVERSAL LAWS exist in a world made up solely of particulars?

If it is your view that the ONLY things that exist are material things, then how can you even imply that logic or reason are universal? Matter is particular (confined to a certain size, shape, mass, etc.) and NOT universal.

How can you, an atheist, make good on the claim that people are (morally) bound to be logical and coherent?

On what rational basis can you, as an atheist, make the claim that the world is both purposeless (not designed) and random, and yet also claim that it is coherent?

How can you rationally justify your belief that your senses are reliable and that your brain function CORRECTLY brings you into contact with an external world? Remember, in your view, your brain function is the result of millions of years of accidents, not design.

Void, the fact remains, your worldview cannot rationally account for any of the above.

FiveSolas
I didn’t use any of my world view so I don’t think how I account for logic, knowledge or induction has any relevance to the discussion.
I applied the ideas of TAG and Presuppositionalism to TAG and Presuppositionalism. The problem is with TAG and Presuppositionalism.
One of the presuppositions of Presuppositionalism is the coherence and hence intelligibility of Scripture. That presupposition is false. Hence the problem.

Here are some suggestions how to proceed conceptually

Plead a special case TAG and Presuppositionalism cannot be used to analyse TAG and Presuppositionalism

A bit weak I don’t know how to begin to justify it. The false presupposition is still there.

Plead a special special case; atheists can’t use TAG and Presuppositionalism to analyse TAG and Presuppositionalism.:smile:

Same problem as before.

Show the assertion is false that there is a real/true account of a Christian conceptual schema in latent in Scripture.

Difficult because you can’t use Scripture (it is incoherent) so you would have to use some other methodology or conceptual schema outside Scripture. No idea what it would be, but if you find it let me know I would be very excited.

Abandon the Presuppositionalism and TAG system on the grounds that it has no utility.

It’s not a bad solution, it means accepting that Scripture is theologically ambiguous but that has a pleasing symmetry; the other revelation, Creation is also theologically ambiguous.
You would have to get use to acting with autonomy.:smile:
Make it a point of strength; if the Creator left his calling card in Scripture but not Creation that would mark a certain inconsistency.
Also if Scripture and Creation were not theologically ambiguous there would be no virtue in faith.

J. J. Ramsey

February 26th 2003, 12:11 PM

Continuing to play devil's advocate . . .

02-25-2003 @ 11:40 PM
TheFiveSolas:
For one thing, if I merely look around these forums I see atheists claiming that Christians are illogical, AND I also see Christians making the same claim with regards to atheists. BOTH groups are appealing to "logic" and claiming the other side is obviously (read: self-evidently) violating logical laws. Therefore, it certainly seems that the claim that "logic" is self-evident doesn't match our experience.

But the disagreement is not over the laws of logic per se, but how they are being applied. Even Christians, who share the same worldview, may disagree that some conclusion is illogical.

In the atheistic worldview, only particulars exist (i.e., matter/energy is FINITE). Yet, the appeal to logic is an appeal to a UNIVERSAL. . . . the laws of logic cannot be said to be material (consisting of matter or energy). Yet, the atheist asserts that ONLY matter/energy exists.

I think that is a distorted view of the skeptical atheists' worldview. Skeptical atheists do believe that universals exist, such as the physical laws that govern the interactions of matter and energy. Logic would be considered another such universal.

[BTW, I'm using "skeptical atheist" to refer to people who believe as atheists such as James Randi or Stephen Jay Gould do, as opposed to, say, a mystical, New-Agey type of atheist. From here on, I'll just refer to "skeptical atheist" as "atheist."]

Next I would have to ask, what gives the laws of logic their AUTHORITY?

I think that an atheist familiar with the Jargon File would answer mu (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/mu.html). The assumption is that logic requires or implies authority at all. An atheist would contend that the laws of logic no more need authority than the law of gravity. They simply exist.

When the atheist appeals to logic they are implying that we SHOULD/OUGHT to be logical. This is an appeal to authority AND also to ethics.

I've dealt with the authority issue already. The ethics issue doesn't matter so much. If the atheistic worldview provides ground for the laws of logic and objective reality (the latter I'll get to, shortly), then the part of TAG that really matters, namely the part that contends that the atheists' worldview has no such grounds and hence cannot be a basis for argument, is undermined.

Whether atheists should mount a logical argument is a separate issue. Let's presume, for the sake of argument, that atheists have no basis for ethics. In practice, they are often inconsistent with their worldview when they mount arguments, because they do mount them because they feel that we should be logical. However, in theory, atheists could mount arguments for reasons wholly unrelated to ethics, such as personal pleasure. In short, atheists, though they are often inconsistent with their worldview when they mount arguments, are not necessarily so.

With regards to "objective reality" we find that the atheist again is unable to account for such an assertion/belief. The term objectivity refers to a vantage point that does NOT involve ignorance of the facts involved NOR fallible subjective interpretation of those facts.

I think your concept of objective reality is in error. The term "objective reality" simply implies that reality is "out there" rather than just in our heads. That means that "objectivity" does not have the definition that you ascribe, but rather that it means "existing independently of any observer." Of course, the objectivity of reality cannot be directly confirmed, since obviously we cannot observe what reality is like when nobody's observing it. However, what an atheist would contend is that if reality is an illusion, it is an incredibly consistent one, completely indistinguishable from a truly objective reality. Therefore, we might as well just presume that reality is objective.

TheFiveSolas

February 27th 2003, 01:32 AM

Void,
I deny your assertion that Scripture is inconsistent or incoherent.

I affirm, along with the Apostle Peter, that some parts of Scripture are (in context Peter is here referring to Paul's writings) "difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

I assert that wherever a skeptic claims there exists a contradiction, inconsistency, or incoherence in Scripture it must be due to a misreading, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of the text.

I also deny that the skeptic can rationally account for universally binding laws of ANY kind, in this case that of logic.

I again throw the challenge back on your doorstep. Provide for us the objective and universally binding standard by which you infallibly determine the difference between a real contradiction and a mere apparent one.

TheFiveSolas

February 27th 2003, 02:01 AM

JJR wrote:

But the disagreement is not over the laws of logic per se, but how they are being applied.

Actually (in this example) the disagreement is fundamentally over the laws of logic, what they are, how they are justified, etc.

For instance, I'm arguing that the God of the bible is absolutely rational, has created ALL facts in the universe AND their relationship to all other facts, has created man in His image, imposes the ethical imperative that man OUGHT to think logically, and that this is the basis for the universality AND source of logical norms/laws.

The unbeliever on the other hand denies every point that I just asserted.

Therefore, at the most basic level, our two views are ANTITHETICAL (key word) when it comes to WHAT the laws of logic are AND how they are justified (rationally accounted for).

Now, in comparing the two worldviews we have the Christian one that, as I've laid out above, provides an internally rational accounting of HOW it can be meaningfully asserted that the laws of logic are universally and morally binding upon all men. It also can rationally account for the BELIEF that one fact is coherently RELATED to any other fact in some way, shape, or form (i.e., due to God's creating all facts AND providentially maintaining an orderly universe).

On the other hand, your hypothetical non-Christian denies that the laws of logic are what I claimed they are, YET implies that such "laws" exists. If they are NOT what I stated above, then they need to provide an explanation of WHAT they are and HOW they are binding upon everyone.

On a side note I need to point out that there are MANY views of logic, even among non-Christians. You have Eastern logic which (ironically) denies the "either-or" law of non-contradiction inherent in Western logic in favor of a "both-and" view (i.e., one that asserts that contradictions can BOTH be true). Note: I said "ironically" because in their very denial of the law of non-contradiction they are affirming it. In doing so, they refute their own position.

As another example, you find amongst Logicians, those that affirm the validity of the "law of excluded middle" and those that deny it.

So, even though it may on the surface appear that there are only minor differences in the way that we view things like "logic" in reality, though we may use the same words, we at core mean very different things by them.

I'll address more in my next post.

Thanks for the challenge!

voidhawk

February 27th 2003, 02:15 PM

FiveSolas wrote
Void,
I deny your assertion that Scripture is inconsistent or incoherent.

I affirm, along with the Apostle Peter, that some parts of Scripture are (in context Peter is here referring to Paul's writings) "difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

I assert that wherever a skeptic claims there exists a contradiction, inconsistency, or incoherence in Scripture it must be due to a misreading, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of the text.

I also deny that the skeptic can rationally account for universally binding laws of ANY kind, in this case that of logic.

I again throw the challenge back on your doorstep. Provide for us the objective and universally binding standard by which you infallibly determine the difference between a real contradiction and a mere apparent one.

Well I didn’t think you would welcome it with open arms.

BTW just to clarify I don’t mean incoherent in a derogatory sense just a dispassionate description.

However I am not a sceptic claiming that there exists a contradiction, inconsistency or incoherence in Scripture but a sceptic observing the behaviour of believers. For example, according to different believers non Christians are fated after death to an eternity in torment, annihilation or ultimate reconciliation to God even after death via Jesus’s universal sacrifice. All three alternatives are mutually exclusive, but all can be justified by Scripture, and any one proponent of these positions will claim that it is the other two who have misread, misunderstood, or misinterpreted the text, and with in Scripture it cannot be demonstrated which is the correct view.

Now if Scripture were coherent there could be only one unambiguous interpretation.

This is not something I need to assert, just observe. You can deny this but it begins to look like the Argument for the Existence of God by sticking fingers in ears, closing eyes tight and shouting “I believe” ad infinitum. :smile:

I know your still challenging me to account for binding universal laws etc. but I’m still not biting because
A) I still think it is a bit of a distraction. The points I have raised so far have nothing to do with how I would account for the concepts you highlighted. A theist could just have easily made the same statements.
B) I think it would be interesting if there could be an account why Presuppositionalism is still a useful schema despite this flaw in its presuppositions.
C) How I account for the reliability of knowledge etc. will not make Scripture coherent.

<tease> If you believe in TAG and Presuppositionalism and that the holders of conceptual schemas they refute no longer have any rational basis for their beliefs; then because of the flawed presupposition (the coherence of Scripture) then Presuppositionalism can no longer stand. You’re back with the rest of us, feet firmly in mid air. :smile: So let me know when with out Scripture you can provide an objective and universally binding standard by which you infallibly determine the difference between a real contradiction and a mere apparent one.</tease>

TheFiveSolas

February 28th 2003, 12:20 AM

Sauron

February 28th 2003, 02:22 AM

02-06-2003 @ 06:56 PM
TheFiveSolas:

Oh, yes, there exist other "holy books". You have the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the Sutras, I Ching, etc., but they are nothing like what the Bible presents itself as being. To quote Dr. Bahnsen, "from an epistemological perspective these "sacred" books are not and cannot be anything like what the Bible claims for itself, namely, to be the Personal communication and infallible verbal revelation from the only living, completely sovereign, and all-knowing Creator."

If none of the other "holy books" even makes the claim to be the infallible "Personal communication" of the only sovereign and all-knowing Creator, it necessarily follows that they can't be put forward as providing an absolutely true account of the nature of reality, knowledge, or ethics. They rule themselves out. Again, the reason should be obvious, if they don't even CLAIM to come from God, then it necessarily follows that they can be nothing MORE than the fallible opinions of finite men and women.

1. The mere fact that the bible claims to be such a Personal Communcation, would not, by itself, be confirming evidence that it was such a Communcation;

2. The Koran makes all these claims (i.e., the infallible Personal communcation of the only sovreign and all-knowing Creator). If your argument was based upon the uniqueness of the claim, then your argument has a fatal flaw - the bible is not unique in making that claim.

PS - does anyone know how to straighten out the quote marks?

TheFiveSolas

February 28th 2003, 03:04 AM

Sauron wrote:

1. The mere fact that the bible claims to be such a Personal Communcation, would not, by itself, be confirming evidence that it was such a Communcation;

2. The Koran makes all these claims (i.e., the infallible Personal communcation of the only sovreign and all-knowing Creator). If your argument was based upon the uniqueness of the claim, then your argument has a fatal flaw - the bible is not unique in making that claim.

Yes, and I've dealt with both of these in earlier posts on this thread.

Jeremy Oxford

March 2nd 2003, 04:44 PM

:cheers: Blake,

Brother you are doing well! You handeled the issues with the guy on science well. You explained yourself well, and represented our apologetic well. COntinue your work for the kingdom!

I look forward to see God's continual hand and work in you life as you study the word faithfully!

As for the fives solas, wonderful! You are correct. I see the Transcendental argument as you do. That is it is very simple, but with the 'jargin' of terms that are thrown around loosly it does tend to make a simple idea a hard one to understand. Thank you so much for your imput.

Blessings,

Jeremy D. Oxford

PS. See you in class Blake! (Hey bro. read my dispute to Dispensationalism in 'Dispensationalism 101'

Jeremy Oxford

March 2nd 2003, 04:47 PM

It is in the article of 'Ovisiouslly spiritual israel

John Powell

March 2nd 2003, 09:17 PM

POWELL:
I guess an atheist here should attempt to rebut this. Here goes.

Blake Reas:
I have been looking into the Transcendental Argument for God's existence for a while and will give some of the main points that it makes and a few links to see what everyone thinks. But remember it does have some hints of the ontological argument but it is supposed to. It is part of the presuppostional apologetic, which assumes the Christian Worldview. So if the Christian view fo perfection is true then the argument is true.

Logic

Logic is grounded in God's being for it is part of his nature.

POWELL:
What evidence or arguments do you have for the assertion that God is transcendental? Please define "logic." I will assume "God" is the Omnibeing. What evidence or arguments do you have supporting this assertion that logic is part of God's being? Is God composed of material objects or immaterial concepts? What is the substance of God?

Hereinafter "AbyA?", that is "argument by assertion?", will substitute for "What evidence or arguments do you have supporting this assertion?"

BLAKE REAS:
God cannot become illogical or make 2+2=5 it is against his very nature so God is necessary for Logic.

POWELL:
What evidence or arguments do you have supporting these assertions that God cannot become illogical and it's against His nature? Humans can become illogical, can't they? So, why can't God? Also, why can't God make 2+2=5? Can God make 1 + 1 = 10? I can do that and even make 2+2=5 and I'm not even God.

Are you saying that without God there could be no logic?

BLAKE REAS:
If the non believer wants to debate this they must give an account of where knowledge comes from.

POWELL:
It comes from genetics and experience. For example, you know that I posted this rebuttal because of your experience in reading it and your former experiences in learning how to read and think. Your ability to think is based upon the capacity of your brain, which is due to genetics.

BLAKE REAS:
Science
You must presume a traditonal view of God's Providence and foreknowledge for this.

POWELL:
Are you saying that one must presume the existence of God to be able to account for knowledge? If yes, then are you using a non-standard definition for "knowledge"?

AbyA?

My free will scenario argues that God cannot have absolute foreknowledge if we have free will. On the other hand, what if "God" is an evil nonOmniBeing Demon pretending to be something He isn't?

BLAKE REAS:
The fact that the unbeliever has no grounds for believing in the inductive principle.

POWELL:
AbyA?

Science seems to work quite well making that assumption. Do you have a superior methodology for truth determination than the scientific method?

BLAKE REAS:
We ultimately don't know if the sun will rise tommorow or if things happen from day today the unbeliever must assume this.

POWELL:
AbyA?

"Must assume" for what? What if I don't assume this, but consider what I should do if the Sun doesn't rise tomorrow? Is that impossible for me to do?

BLAKE REAS:
The theist on the other hand believes in a sovereign all powerful God who is in control of all things (Ephesians 1).

POWELL:
AbyA?

What does "all powerful" mean? Can God do that which is logically impossible or is that something He can't control?

Does God control free will? Does God control the past and the future?

Does this mean "all things" as in "absolutely everything that is a thing"? or is it an exaggeration that actually means something more like "pretty much all things that are relevant to man and possible to control"?

BLAKE REAS:
So the theist can assume that God is good and that he governs the universe in rational fashion (looking back on logic and looking forward to morality).

POWELL:
The theist CAN do that, but would he be justified in doing that? Given the apparent bad behavior of the God of the Bible (e.g., Num 31:17-18 and 1 Sam 15:2-3), it might be an unwise assumption to consider God that good. Given the apparent ignorance of God on science (e.g., Gen 1) it might be unwise to consider God to be that rational.

BLAKE REAS:
For instance some "miracles" are brought about by God using the natural order (Ie. moses at the Sea of Reeds).

POWELL:
AbyA?

This "East wind" does not appear to be a natural wind. The people were able to walk upright even though the wind was evidently blowing hard enough to cause walls of water to remain to either side of their path and the ground underneath them to be dry. This sounds like a tall tale. You're welcome to attempt such a feat in a wind tunnel or something like that. If this happened it was probably a miracle, not a natural event.

If this is supposed to be one of the "some" miracles brought about by God using natural order, what are some examples that aren't?

Did the Exodus actually occur? It is my understanding that the consensus of historians, based on the paucity of evidence in light of expectations, is that the Exodus probably did not occur as described in the Bible.

BLAKE REAS:
Morality

This is much the same as logic. Goodness, holiness, justice etc. are grounded in God's nature he cannot act against this nature therefore since we are created in his image we have these moral compasses also.

POWELL:
AbyA?

Why can't God be bad or unholy or unjust? Doesn't God have free will? Since we can behave that way and we are created in God's image, would it surprise you if God acted like we do? On the other hand, what if "God" is really an evil Demon pretending to be good, holy, and just? The God of the Bible didn't always seem so good, holy, and just (e.g., Midianites and Amalekites).

BLAKE REAS:
just a run down of a huge argument. I in no way claim to have represented it fairly. This is what I know from what I have read. If you want links I can post some if anyone wants to read further.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

POWELL:
Anyone want to represent this argument for God fairly and defend it?

If yes, then please put the argument into a syllogism, if reasonably possible, and tell me whether you are claiming the argument is a sound deductive argument, a merely valid deductive argument, or something else.

John Powell

John Powell

March 2nd 2003, 10:36 PM

TheFiveSolas:

Berean,
I'll try to answer your question in my next post.

Blake,
Ok, here goes with an attempted critique of one aspect of Till's argument.

Till's argument is an attempt to show that the foundation for Christianity's system is inherently contradictory. If this can be proven Christianity would be reduced to absurdity. However, Till has a very big problem even getting his argument off the ground. Till is assuming several things in his argument that he has never (to my knowledge) given a rational account for. In other words, he begs a very crucial question and I intend to call him on it here. Till assumes the existence of logical laws!

Now, before you think I'm denying the laws of logic I'll merely point out that I too affirm the existence of such laws. But, I can give a rational account of things such as laws that differentiate between valid and invalid arguments.

POWELL:
What is your definition of "valid"?

Ok, then using the laws of logic, can you determine whether Modus Ponens is circular or not? Can you even determine whether Modus Ponens is valid?

TheFiveSolas:
On the other hand, how might Till rationally account for the laws of logic?

POWELL:
I don't know what Farrell Till would say, but I might say "the laws of logic are inventions of man that appear to work really well."

TheFiveSolas:
To find out the answer to that question I would have to ask him a couple of questions in order to see what he means when he makes reference to logic (and its laws). This is the first of the two-pronged approach that I mentioned in my earlier post. It is an internal critique of his worldview.

Question 1
1) Are the laws of logic material or immaterial (non-physical)?

Now, how might an atheist like Till respond to question 1? He might give one of two answers (I hope this is obvious).
A1) The laws of logic are material (having the properties of matter or energy).

IF this is his answer I would have to ask for proof such as the physical properties of a logical law (i.e., its inherent size, shape, electron charge, etc.) I hope the absurdity of such a response is obvious.

A2) The laws of logic are immaterial.
IF this is his answer I would have to ask how he can rationally account, in his atheistic system, for the REAL existence of non-physical entities. What possible rational account could he give for their existence?

POWELL:
Immaterial. The "laws of logic" aren't composed of protons, electrons, photons, etc.

By "real" do you mean existing in the real universe outside our minds? Are you suggesting that the laws of logic exist as real objects outside the mind of man? If you are then I must ask you about the physical properties of them.

TheFiveSolas:
Note: In my questioning I'm attempting to get at the UNPROVEN assumptions that undergird Till's argument. If he cannot give a rational account of (or for) them then his argument fails at step one.

POWELL:
Which of Farrell Till's other assumptions are you challenging?

TheFiveSolas:
A second question I might ask would be this:
2) Are the laws of logic universal or are they the conventions of men?

POWELL:
That becomes a false dichotomy using my definitions. By "universal," I would mean that all competent persons, namely expert authorities agree that the laws of logic are incredibly worthwhile. They are, nevertheless, still the conventions of men.

TheFiveSolas:
He might respond that they are universally binding upon all men.

But, how can an atheist rationally account for the existence of authoritative laws that ALL are bound by? How can an atheist account for UNIVERSALS in a physical world full of PARTICULARS?

POWELL:
I make no such claim. In some cases, what is currently thought of as a "law of logic" may be false or less useful. For example, Modus Ponens may be a circular argument or not valid. Mutually contradictory statements might be true (i.e. Dialetheism might be true).

TheFiveSolas:
On the other hand, he might assert that logical laws are the inventions (conventions) of men. This position would also destroy his attempted criticism of the Bible since if logical laws aren't universal then it follows that he can't impose HIS chosen "laws" upon others.

POWELL:
Please post your evidence or argument supporting this assertion that if the logical laws are not universal as you use the term that it follows that Farrell Till can't impose His chosen "laws" upon others. I don't think you can present a persuasive argument for this.

Even if the laws weren't universal in the way you might think, that does NOT necessarily mean they aren't sufficiently useful that rational people, such as Biblical inerrantists, should not make use of them. Rational people should and do use them. A major indicator that someone is rational is if they use logic. The problem may be that some people are more sloppy in their reasoning than others.

TheFiveSolas:
(2nd part of the two-pronged approach)
Lastly, (for now) I will compare and contrast his underlying rationale for believing in the existence of logical laws with the Christian worldview.

1) The Christian has a rational foundation for affirming the existence of non-physical entities since our view of reality encompasses both physical and non-physical objects.

POWELL:
Are you saying that because Christians have chosen to believe in some non-physical objects that allegedly aren't merely concepts of the mind that they can more easily accept other non-physical objects that might not be merely concepts of the mind? Is that what you're saying? This looks like brain washing. Get someone to believe one thing without good scientific support and it's easier to get them to accept other such things.

TheFiveSolas:
We also have rational grounds for KNOWING the nature of reality as being dualistic (physical and non-physical) because we have a written revelation from the ONE being who would know and therefore is able to reveal it.

POWELL:
If you KNOW reality is dualistic like this, could you give some evidence and argument for it? What justifies your certainty?

How do you KNOW that God hasn't been completely silent and men have just made this stuff up? How do you KNOW that God doesn't exist and that men made all this up? Or, how do you KNOW that God didn't lie to you about all this because He's actually an evil Demon masquerading as a good Being?

TheFiveSolas:
Simply put, God is the creator, is omniscient, and omnipotent, therefore He knows the nature of reality and has chosen to reveal it to us in Scripture.

POWELL:
How do you KNOW this? Maybe the real God remains completely hidden and men have made up these things about Him. Maybe God is an evil Demon pretending to be something He isn't. Maybe there is no God at all and all this has been made up by men.

Please present your evidence and argument in support of your assertion that God has those attributes and that He has chosen to reveal the nature of reality in Scripture.

This seems doubtful given my scenario arguing against the foreknowledge of God and the number of apparent science errors in the Bible (e.g., Gen 1).

TheFiveSolas:
The atheist, on the other hand, has NO such epistemological foundation (i.e., he has no rational basis for claiming to know the true nature of reality).

POWELL:
What about genetics and experience? What about science?

TheFiveSolas:
2) The Christian can give a rational account for affirming the existence of UNIVERSALS since we have an authoritative, personal law-giver.

POWELL:
Then, if I were to prove to you that God cannot know the future, like it already happened, like watching a movie, since we have free will, would you revise this claim about universals?

So, you choose God's opinion as the authoritative one and then call it universal? Well, so can the atheist. They could choose their own opinion or the concensus of the expert authorities or something like that. Just because God is of the opinion that something should apply universally to everyone doesn't mean it necessarily should, does it? If you think it does, please present your evidence or argument.

If you think whatever God decides must be right regardless of how bad it looks to us, please respond to the following scenario.

Imagine that immediately after reading this paragraph God were to annihilate everything in the universe and all other planes of existence so that nothing exists, nobody, no heaven, no hell, except for you and Him. Would God be justified in doing that? Would it be good or bad or something else? What do you think?

TheFiveSolas:
God, as a fully rational being that created us in His image, provides the metaphysic (view of reality) for affirming that ALL men are rational creatures who have a MORAL obligation to be logical. On the other hand, atheists cannot account for universals nor can they account for a binding moral system by which people are obligated to be logical.

POWELL:
What universals? Please present your evidence and argument that those universals you're referring to exist outside of the mind of man. I think we agree that people have a moral obligation to be reasonably logical. However, are you suggesting that if Christians are illogical they risk going to hell?

TheFiveSolas:
Ok, my brain is fading fast after a long day at work, etc. So, I'll stop here. Let me know if this helped and if I need to clarify anything I just said.

POWELL:
Yes, please clarify and defend as indicated above.

John Powell

John Powell

March 2nd 2003, 11:37 PM

POWELL:
I'm in a hurry, so I didn't edit this too carefully.

TheFiveSolas:
Matt,
The transcendental argument can be employed against any non-Christian system (atheistic or religious). Hopefully my reply to the stronger version of Berean's atheist's argument will help show why.

Here goes...

I've already shown how the original argument put forth by Berean's atheist was nothing more than an argument from arbitrary speculation.

POWELL:
I would like to see that argument again then. Perhaps this "unseen as a personal Being" God IS the universe. That does not seem to be so arbitrary since the universe appears to be all there is.

TheFiveSolas:
Therefore, it was not rationally based.

POWELL:
What's your definition of "rational"? Don't you mean that it's not as rational as proposing a God that was not so arbitrary?

TheFiveSolas:
I also showed how in comparison, the Christian worldview is justified in (can rationally account for) its presuppositions (ultimate assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics).

POWELL:
I would like to see that argument of yours.

TheFiveSolas:
A stronger form of the argument (put in question form) would be as follows. Why does it have to be the Christian God and not some other transcendent one?

There are many ways of addressing this question/challenge. However, all will involve doing an internal analysis of the non-Christian's worldview (his fundamental assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics). In so doing, we will show that IF the non-Christian's worldview were true, science, rationality, ethics, knowledge, etc. would be impossible. But how do we accomplish this?

The answer comes when we look at what things need to be true about the world we live in, our nature, etc. in order for ANYTHING to be meaningful.

The term "transcendental" in TAG does not refer merely to that which "transcends" human experience, but rather refer to what preconditions are necessary for ANY human experience to be meaningful. Bahnsen and Van Til refer to these transcendentals as the preconditions for intelligibility.

POWELL:
Thanks for that definition. Why didn't they call these "necessary" preconditions rather than "transcendant" preconditions?

TheFiveSolas:
Their insight came from realizing that everyone's worldview is made up of a NETWORK (a web) of beliefs that are INTERRELATED. Some of our beliefs are more foundational (or fundamental) than others. Some are absolutely necessary for making anything intelligible. Those that are absolutely necessary are transcendental.

POWELL:
Transcendental, meaning absolutely necessary, right?

TheFiveSolas:
Let me give a few examples in an attempt to help clarify what I mean. Some (there are many others, but I give these for starters) of the necessary foundational assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and ethics are as follows.

1) We exist.

2) A world separate from ourselves exists (i.e., there is a difference between what makes ME me, and what makes something not me, or part of me)

POWELL:
Ok for now for 1 and 2.

TheFiveSolas:
3) The world operates in a rationally understandable fashion (i.e., laws of cause/effect operate otherwise we would be UNABLE to make sense of ANY event)

POWELL:
I would agree with 3 for now if you changed "in a rationally" to "in a sufficiently rationally"

TheFiveSolas:
4) Our senses bring us into contact with a REAL world that is external to ourselves.

5) Our senses are generally reliable.

6) Our brains are generally reliable in INTERPRETING the information that our senses bring it.

POWELL:
Ok for 4, 5, 6 for now.

TheFiveSolas:
7) We have free will in the sense that we are NOT physically/chemically determined to think a certain way (i.e., that we have the freedom and ability to choose to believe one thing over and against another.)

POWELL:
Ok for now.

TheFiveSolas:
8) That there exists an objective and universally binding standard by which we OUGHT to make choices (i.e., that reason/rationality aren't person relative).

9) That there exists objective and universally binding standards by which we OUGHT to behave (i.e., people SHOULD be rational, people should NOT murder, etc.).

POWELL:
I don't agree with 8 and 9 as being necessary for there to be ethics. Furthermore, I wish you would distinguish arguments for ethics from those for knowledge and reality. I submit that ethics is person relative. "Universal" ethics would just mean what all expert authorities agree with it. If ethics were universal in the way you might think, then one would probably expect more agreement about things like abortion, cloning, homosexuality, euthanasia, suicide, etc.

TheFiveSolas:
All of the above (and more) need to be true in order for ANY human experience to be made intelligible.

POWELL:
Please present your argument that every one of those 9 items need to be true in order for any human experience to be made intelligible. A syllogism would be nice.

For a child to understand breathing or nursing well enough to live, does she need to accept every one of those 9 items to be true?

TheFiveSolas:
Deny any precondition and you destroy all hopes of intelligibility. It boils down to either a COMPREHENSIVE worldview that accounts for all necessary preconditions or else all human experience would be unintelligible and therefore absurd.

POWELL:
Does it have to be all or nothing? Can't we get by with sort of understanding?

TheFiveSolas:
Now which worldview can rationally account for ALL of the above
(and any other necessary preconditions) and do so SIMULTANEOUSLY? Also, how can our claim, to KNOW that these necessary preconditions for intelligiblity ACTUALLY are true, be rationally justified?

If it can be shown that the Christian worldview can account for all of the above it will be shown to be the ONLY worldview to be able to do so. The reason is simple, Scripture asserts that only the Christian worldview is true.

POWELL:
This begs the question as to whether Scripture is what you claim it to be. Just because something asserts doesn't make it so. Given the apparent errors in the Bible (possible contradictions like the death of Josiah and Judas and possibly failed prophecies like Matt 24:34 and Rev 22:20) one might be justified in concluding that the Bible isn't the Word of an Omnibeing.

TheFiveSolas:
Therefore, if the worldview asserted by Scripture is NECESSARY for making ANY human experience intelligible it follows that it alone does so. Or, to put it another way, ALL other rival views need to ASSUME the truth (about the nature of reality, knowledge, man, ethics, etc.) found in Scripture in order to even ATTEMPT to argue against it! They end up refuting themselves in their very attempt at refuting Christianity.

I will try to flesh this out in my next post since its now about 1:40am.

One last thing before I hit the sack. I could point to ANY aspect of human experience and show how unless the God of Scripture exists it would be unintelligible (not able to be talked about rationally). For example, if my worldview was strict materialism (that only matter and energy exists) and yet I maintained that love exists but isn't material (i.e., solely a biochemical stimulus/response) I would be shown to be holding TWO beliefs that do not comport with each other. Or to put it another way, I would be UNABLE to speak meaningfully about love as something MORE (or other) than a biochemical reaction. If nothing more than matter/energy exists then it necessarily follows that love cannot be anything BUT matter or energy and to speak otherwise is to speak unintelligibly (within that respective worldview).

POWELL:
Human beings can create meaning and order in their minds even if it's in reference to things which do not exist or do not have the attributes they think those things have or are not nearly as ordered as they think they are. It's part of our imagination.

Human beings are able to not only imagine things which do not exist, but even things which cannot exist. Just watch a fantasy movie or read a fantasy novel or play a computer game.

John Powell

Jeremy Oxford

March 3rd 2003, 05:04 AM

:huh: Powell,

I do not have much time with this and will be responding to your posts at a later time, but I would like to make a couple of statements real quick and brief. Please understand also that no matter how blunt my staments may be they are in now why to give offense to you. For the heart of argument is not to 'Prove' Christianity to you but to relay its soul saving message.

The trancendental argument as mentioned by The five Solas can be a difficult apologetic to understand. I think you spent more time trying to refute it than trying to understand it. In which you have missed much of what has been said. Your logic is understandable by has completely collasped begining with the first attack on Christianty. You say knowledge, reality, ect. can only be know empirically and existentionally (exuse my spelling) when you give no empiricals. You can not show me under your microscope that God does not exisist nor that Jesus was His son who came to die that the lost might be saved. Nor can I under the same lens prove to you that he is. So searching for empiricles on this issue is a dead end , in that science neither proves nor disproves.

Now I noticed a few comments you made concerning God's forknowledge and mans freedom. I would like t handle that briefly right now.

Forknowledge/Freedom:

You are right if God does not foreknow man is free. for his will is not already determined by what God forknows. However that is not what the Bible teaches. The bible teaches that God is all knowing. Therefore if God knows all determinism does play into acount. I have little time to expond and I am sure either Blake or The Five Solas will explain this..If not I hope to get back to this in a coupleof days.

You say God is evil based off His work in a few passages:

Yes, if you read the text outside of history putting absolutly no scholarship in the text at all it would appear to be. God is not evil! The wrath that he brings on people are of people who ave been warned to change there ways. They have sinned and rebelled so much that to benifit the world and to show his power and might he wipes them out. We see this over and over again in the OT. So God's wrath is do to mans disobedience. Is God soverign over all things Absolutly. "What about 9/11, the holocost, vietnam?" God was there, nothing happend that he did not allow (Proverbs 16.33). Did God do these things? no, God is not eveil...He says in his word through the Prophet Isaiah "I do not delight in the destruction of the wicked." God does not take Joy in destroying those who rebelle against Him.
(This is just brief so please exuse my simple explanations)

The bible being written by men:

Yeah, so what is you point? Written by men under the soverign control of God. Over a course of 1500 yrs. The Bible shows to be acurate in every area, from Genisis to revelation. Show me a contradiction, I will show you bad hermeneutics (I.e. your earlier scripture references.)

Other issues:

You still have not given an account for Morals, Scientific method, ect.. You sy they are empirically sound. Show me. You will end up at the end of your logic saying "It just does!" Where the believer says it does because God made it so in his grace, power, and will.

I am tired and thinking slow right now, so I am going to sleep but will be back to give a more detailed explantion and rebutal to you.

In the mean time I urge you to consider the possiblity of being wrong. And that only through Jesus is rationality available. I believ that deep down you know there is a God and that God is the revealed God of the Bible. I believe deep down you believe that you may have offended Him....and that in your attempt to deny your ebellion you attempt to reduce to level of humanity. Please reconsider friend. I encourae you to read when you have the chance the Letter that Paul wrote in the New Testament Called Romans. It is short and can be read in a half hr to an hr. Read it and get back to me.

Jeremy D. Oxford

John Powell

March 3rd 2003, 01:39 PM

OXFORD:
:huh: Powell,
I do not have much time with this and will be responding to your posts at a later time, but I would like to make a couple of statements real quick and brief. Please understand also that no matter how blunt my staments may be they are in now why to give offense to you.

POWELL:
Likewise.

OXFORD:
For the heart of argument is not to 'Prove' Christianity to you but to relay its soul saving message.

POWELL:
Perhaps theologians argued that when they realized they couldn't adequately defend their beliefs. Why should any rational person believe Christianity if it can't be demonstrated to be true?

OXFORD:
The trancendental argument as mentioned by The five Solas can be a difficult apologetic to understand.

POWELL:
Fine. Explain it then. Putting it into a syllogism might be helpful.

OXFORD:
I think you spent more time trying to refute it than trying to understand it. In which you have missed much of what has been said.

POWELL:
Perhaps.

OXFORD:
Your logic is understandable by has completely collasped begining with the first attack on Christianty.

POWELL:
What is your evidence and argument for that? I found much of the argument in that first post to be unsupported. I'm waiting for someone to present it properly.

OXFORD:
You say knowledge, reality, ect. can only be know empirically and existentionally (exuse my spelling) when you give no empiricals.

POWELL:
Where did I say or clearly imply that? I meant to argue that we can have knowledge because of genetics and experience. I don't believe I've claimed yet that that's the only way, but maybe it is. Isn't that how you learn about things, by experiencing them and correlating your perception with your previous experiences using that brain that was given to you by your parents? Can you suggest a significantly different way people gain knowledge? Didn't you learn about God in this way?

OXFORD:
You can not show me under your microscope that God does not exisist nor that Jesus was His son who came to die that the lost might be saved.

POWELL:
Argument from ignorance. Maybe I can. Have you considered my "argument from evil"? Perhaps you'll do my "free will" scenario.

OXFORD:
Nor can I under the same lens prove to you that he is.

POWELL:
Also argument from ignorance. Maybe you can.

OXFORD:
So searching for empiricles on this issue is a dead end , in that science neither proves nor disproves.

POWELL:
Do you mean that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an OmniBeing or that the only biological offspring of that OmniBeing came to the Earth to die painfully so that He would be willing to let certain of us be saved? What is your definition of prove? If I were to convince you one way or the other using science and philosophical logic, would it have been "proven" to you?

OXFORD:
Now I noticed a few comments you made concerning God's forknowledge and mans freedom. I would like t handle that briefly right now.

Forknowledge/Freedom:

You are right if God does not foreknow man is free. for his will is not already determined by what God forknows. However that is not what the Bible teaches. The bible teaches that God is all knowing. Therefore if God knows all determinism does play into acount.

POWELL:
So, are you arguing that we don't have free will, that our future is predetermined because God knows it, like it already happened, like watching a movie?

OXFORD:
I have little time to expond and I am sure either Blake or The Five Solas will explain this..If not I hope to get back to this in a coupleof days.

You say God is evil based off His work in a few passages:

POWELL:
Where did I say or clearly imply that? I didn't mean to make so bold a statement yet. I asked questions. Could it be that God is really an evil Demon? I suggested that God might be evil given what He apparently ordered done to the Midianites and the Amalekites in the Bible. It appears you didn't defend God's specific actions there.

Do you think it was right for God to order killed the innocent boy virgin Midianites, but give the innocent girl virgins to the Israelites to marry and rape? Do you think it was right for God to order the death of innocent Amalekite boys and girls and others for something their ancestors had done about 400 years earlier?

OXFORD:
Yes, if you read the text outside of history putting absolutly no scholarship in the text at all it would appear to be.

POWELL:
Are you really prepared to defend an assertion that I read the text "OUTSIDE of (meaning ignoring?) history putting ABSOLUTELY no scholarship in the text AT ALL"? Wouldn't you be exaggerating if you made that assertion?

OXFORD:
God is not evil!

POWELL:
You say that with such feeling. What evidence or argument do you have to support your strongly felt belief? Given, again, what God APPARENTLY ordered done to the Midianites and Amalekites it APPEARS that God has done at least some evil.

OXFORD:
The wrath that he brings on people are of people who ave been warned to change there ways. They have sinned and rebelled so much that to benifit the world and to show his power and might he wipes them out.

POWELL:
Did the innocent Midianites and Amalekites rebel against God? Did the unborn children inside the wombs of the pregnant mothers rebel against God and deserve that judgment? Couldn't the OmniGod have shown His power in a better way and still accomplish His good purposes than to just kill them? I could have come up with better solutions and I'm not even God.

OXFORD:
We see this over and over again in the OT. So God's wrath is do to mans disobedience.

POWELL:
Again, Jeremy, did the innocent children and fetuses disobey God? And, if they did, did they do so in such a way that they deserved to die? Do you favor the termination of infidel children today?

If you were one of those ancient Israelites told by Moses to kill Midianite children and pregnant mothers and take one of the virgin girls to marry and possibly rape or if you were told by Samuel to kill all the Amalekites (even the virgin girls), would you follow the commands of either of those men? If not, why would you disobey?

If God were to order you to go kill infidel pregnant mothers and their young offspring today, would you do it? If no, why would you disobey God?

OXFORD:
Is God soverign over all things Absolutly.

POWELL:
ABSOLUTELY?

Is time a thing, Jeremy? Is the past, the future? Is God sovereign over those things? Can God change the past or the future? Is God sovereign over impossible things we can imagine? Is God sovereign over how many sides a triangle can have?

Aren't you exaggerating, Jeremy? Didn't the Bible writer mean something more like "God is in charge of pretty much everything that is important to Man."?

OXFORD:
"What about 9/11, the holocost, vietnam?" God was there, nothing happend that he did not allow (Proverbs 16.33). Did God do these things? no, God is not eveil...He says in his word through the Prophet Isaiah "I do not delight in the destruction of the wicked" God does not take Joy in destroying those who rebelle against Him.

POWELL:
Then why does God do that which He doesn't like to do?

So, God sat and watched evil that He could have prevented. What good is that? If I were God I would have helped out more.

Didn't God create all things, including evil?

John 1:3 (KJV):
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Isa. 45: 7 (KJV):
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

POWELL:
Some translations think this "evil" doesn't mean moral bad, but "physical evil" like calamities, distress.

Why did God allow for unnecessary evil if He is all-good and all-powerful? What good reason did God have?

OXFORD:
(This is just brief so please exuse my simple explanations)

The bible being written by men:

Yeah, so what is you point? Written by men under the soverign control of God.

POWELL:
What is your evidence and argument for that? Those men CLAIMED they were inspired by God. Given the apparent errors in the Bible it appears that they weren't inspired by an OmniGod or by a non-OmniGod who cared that much that His Word be inerrant.

OXFORD:
Over a course of 1500 yrs. The Bible shows to be acurate in every area, from Genisis to revelation. Show me a contradiction, I will show you bad hermeneutics (I.e. your earlier scripture references.)

POWELL:
Ok, how about the apparently contradictory death accounts of king Josiah and the traitor Judas, or the apparently failed prophesies of Jesus in Matt 24 and Rev 22 or the apparently bad things God did to the Midianites and Amalekites? Pick one of those to start with and we can go from there.

I suggest you begin a new thread in the appropriate forum.

OXFORD:
Other issues:

You still have not given an account for Morals, Scientific method, ect.. You sy they are empirically sound.

POWELL:
Where did I use that verbiage?

OXFORD:
Show me.

POWELL:
You want me to show you that people decide what is moral or not and that their subjective opinions sometimes conflict with the opinions of others? I can try, but I've run out of space here.

You want me to show you that the scientific method is an effective one? Don't you use technology? Doesn't that suggest the methods of science work reasonably well? Do you have an alternative methodology (such as prayer) that is more effective at discovering truth?

OXFORD:
You will end up at the end of your logic saying "It just does!"

POWELL:
Perhaps.

OXFORD:
Where the believer says it does because God made it so in his grace, power, and will.

I am tired and thinking slow right now, so I am going to sleep but will be back to give a more detailed explantion and rebutal to you.

In the mean time I urge you to consider the possiblity of being wrong.

POWELL:
I could be wrong, Jeremy. I concede that.

Now, listen very closely Jeremy and answer this truthfully: COULD YOU BE WRONG? (about things like God, the Bible, and Christianity).

OXFORD:
And that only through Jesus is rationality available.

POWELL:
Are you suggesting that people who lived before Jesus was born could not be rational?

OXFORD:
I believ that deep down you know there is a God and that God is the revealed God of the Bible.

POWELL:
You are mistaken, Jeremy.

Not only do I NOT BELIEVE your God exists, but I DO BELIEVE your God does not exist. I am an athe-ist or strong atheist.

I do not believe the Bible is the Word of an Omnibeing or even of a non-Omnibeing, but powerful personal God. I believe the Bible is the work of mere men who, at least sometimes, believed they were inspired by God.

What must I do to persuade you that this truly represents my beliefs?

OXFORD:
I believe deep down you believe that you may have offended Him....and that in your attempt to deny your ebellion you attempt to reduce to level of humanity. Please reconsider friend. I encourae you to read when you have the chance the Letter that Paul wrote in the New Testament Called Romans. It is short and can be read in a half hr to an hr. Read it and get back to me.

Jeremy D. Oxford

POWELL:
There was a time I believed that I had offended God. I almost killed myself because of that. Perhaps I'll have time to read Romans again.

John Powell

voidhawk

March 4th 2003, 06:11 PM

Void, (and by proxy, TenDimensions)
Great post! Its along the same lines as one of the main thrusts of TenDimensions' post.

Ok, here goes.

The gist of your critique is that the Christian worldview cannot be what presuppositionalists claim (i.e., the necessary precondition for intelligibility) BECAUSE Christians don't agree on what the Bible teaches.

I certainly can't refute the observation that Christians posit varying interpretations of Scripture. So, how can your objection be overcome?

Let me start with a this rhetorical question.

If I place ten people into a room with a Bible and tell them each to read it. Then when they come out I find that they have ten different interpretations, where is the variable? The Bible or the people? The answer should be obvious.

Or, if I found that of the 250 students in an Organic Chemistry lecture all of them focused on different aspects of the lecture (i.e., some were more interested in one part of the lecture over another), does that mean that the lecture itself didn't convey true knowledge or a valid foundation for knowing about Organic Chem?

What if out of the 250 students taking Org. Chem. seventy failed the course, does that mean that the Professor was wrong in what he was teaching? Of course not. Some students may have been lazy and didn't listen to the lectures. Some students might not have come to every lecture and so missed some of the crucial information they needed. Some students didn't read the entire textbook, etc.

So, when it comes to Christianity, the variety of interpretations stem from the people, not the Bible.

In fact, the Bible explains why this is the case. In addition, the Christian worldview can rationally account for the variations that you pointed out. People are sinful and suppress the truth when they don't like what the truth asserts. Since Christians (and non-Christians) are sinful, they are fully able to pick and choose what they like from Scripture and discard the rest. We are also able to come to the Scriptures with false assumptions and expectations, imposing those underlying assumptions UPON Scripture rather than letting Scripture correct them. We are also able to be lazy by not reading the "textbook" in its entirety. Or we can be ignorant of things like grammar, context, cultural setting, etc.

All of the above factors contribute to the phenomena of varying interpretations, but sin is the greatest factor. This is where the Christian worldview is most needed. The realm of redemption. We not only need to be saved body and soul, but also in the realm of our mind/reason/intellect. Without such a salvation, intellectually we would be left "with both feet firmly planted in mid air" and NO WAY of being rescued from such a predicament. Without God's salvation we would forever be in the position of having myriad opinions with NO hope of ever finding out which, if any, are true.

The Bible instructs believers to "study to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, and who CORRECTLY handles the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15.

Lastly (for now), Scripture, not fallible human opinion/interpretation, is the epistemological foundation of the Christian worldview. Therefore, since the Bible is the propositional revelation (in normal human language) of an all-powerful God, we have a means by which errors (including those of interpretation) can be corrected. We have a referent point to which we are anchored epistemologically; no other worldview provides such a firm foundation.

Hi fivesolas

Apologies for the delay in reply to your last post the server shut down threw me out of my stride.

Thank you for an enthusiastic reply. I still think you are painting yourself into a corner. I should say that I’m not arguing that God does not exist on this thread; my critique is focused on Presuppositionalism and TAG as a system of apologetics. Even if they can be shown to have no utility (as I believe) that will have no implication for the existence or non existence of God.

My concern with your post is that it is a self referential argument. It seems to me you are arguing that you can know that Scripture is unambiguous because Scripture affirms that it is unambiguous, but that affirmation may be ambiguous. The problem here is that the decision to regard Scripture as unambiguous comes from within human minds. When some one reads Scripture or listeners to some one preaching from Scripture they experience this through the filter of the human mind. How do they know which is the correct interpretation? From the perspective you are advancing; please correct me if I have misinterpreted your position, on one hand our intellects are choked with sin, we can not trust them on the other those who claimed to be saved cannot agree on an interpretation.

It is not possible is from Scripture to draw out a coherent world view the error correction mechanism is not explicit. If it was there would be no debate on the Trinity or the fate of the unsaved it, could be read explicitly from Scripture.

At the risk of anthropomorphising the abilities of a hypothetical (from my perspective) omni deity

If we can construct unambiguous text so could the omni deity. That for the purpose this argument he or she (LOL) chose not to; implies that maybe the theological ambiguity is important.

In summary I do not see how from the post how you would derive the unambiguous message from Scripture you have faith is there. How can, say the Rev van Tils and Dr G Bahnsen, reading of Scripture as the one true interpretation be justified.

A couple of points on your analogies, not to be taken too seriously; analogies should not be pushed beyond the borders of their use.

If I place ten people into a room with a Bible and tell them each to read it. Then when they come out I find that they have ten different interpretations, where is the variable? The Bible or the people? The answer should be obvious.

Couldn’t the answer be both the text might support multiple interpretations. Some might argue that you could place ten people in a room with the collect works of Shakespeare and get ten different interpretations because their is no correct way to read the plays and sonnets it is about how somebody receives them. Is King Lear a tract on corruption in government, a symbolic exploration of a dysfunctional family or a polemic on one mans redemption through suffering. All of them or none there is no unambiguous correct interpretation maybe Scripture is the same.

I find the analogy of the Organic Chemistry professor unconvincing (did that surprise :smile: )
I believe anolgies like this fall under the weight of the omni deity. If God wanted to he could expound with a clarity that would not fail to inoculate all his students with an enthusiasm for Organic Chemistry that would quickly lead them to becoming experts in the subject. Although from the comments that some of my friends have made with regards to Organic Chemistry being an enthralling subject even God might find this a challenge.LOL

Last point, the main difference between Scripture and Organic Chemistry (within in its conceptual schema) is that at any time should the professor find his competence or knowledge being challenged he can appeal to a justification beyond his texts, he can ask the students to repeat the observation themselves. A luxury that apparently the scholars of Scripture do not have.

TheFiveSolas

March 5th 2003, 12:15 AM

John Powell,
You have helped me to better understand why the post limit on TheologyWeb is 12,000 characters (not words) and also why the rules forbid multiple posts as a way around this limit.

For the enjoyment of others reading and participating in the posts on TheologyWeb certain rules have been established.

The maximum post length is 12K CHARACTERS. Please keep the points concise. Spanning posts as a work around this rule is forbidden and will only be given exemption to articles or content specific material that exceed the post limit. Responses to other's post are not exempt. Before such posts please note in the first post that it will span multiple posts otherwise you will be requested to remedy this or have it deleted.

Also:

Please limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy when addressing many points.

In keeping with the above rules I will now address just a few of your assertions/attempted critiques since if I were to address ALL of them I would have to write several times the number of words used in just your first three posts (4069!).

John Powell wrote:

My free will scenario argues that God cannot have absolute foreknowledge if we have free will.

I'm not sure whether or not you've read enough of the philosophical literature to know that this critique ONLY applies to the Libertarian definition of free will (i.e., the view of will that says its "choices" are completely free of any antecedent causes, including the personality, desires, intellect, brain chemistry, etc. of the agent involved).

What I find revealing is that your other questions, comments, and assertions seem to imply that you deny this view of free will.
For instance you wrote,

Your ability to think is based upon the capacity of your brain, which is due to genetics.

If thinking is based (solely) upon the "capacity of your brain...due to genetics" then you are implying that there exists a causal connection at least when it comes to how the brain thinks or chooses to think.

The main alternative view of free will is that of the compatibilists who maintain that a will is free as long as when it chooses it does so based upon the individual's own desires without being forced or coerced.

So, Christianity's view that God knows and plans the future is in no way incompatible with this understanding of free will. In other words, God's foreordaination even includes the free choices of men. As an example, God foreordained that I would freely choose to respond to your post. The only things that necessarily follow from such a view is that I would definitely respond to your post AND when I did so I would do so freely since I desired to do so without force or coercion.

I would now like to turn your "free will scenario" back on your own head by showing that YOUR worldview would preclude even the possibility of ANY freedom of choice/will.

In your view you've asserted that the mind's action is determined by genetics and environment (i.e., solely material processes). In other words, ALL of the activity of the mind/brain is subject to (determined by) the laws of physics and chemistry. On this view, brain activity can be nothing more than the FIXED action/reaction of the atoms that make up an individual's brain to its external environment. According to everything we know about atoms and molecules they act/react the way they do SOLELY due to their inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc. Therefore, they do NOT make choices at all. Or to put it another way, they have NO freedom to act in ANY way different from the way they end up acting (i.e., they are completely PASSIVE).

Simply put, if your view of the world were true (i.e., the ONLY things that exist are matter/energy that acts/reacts according to the laws of physics and chemistry) then choice and by necessary inference "free will" is completely and utterly ruled out.

In a nutshell, according to your worldview, you can't help thinking the way you do (being an atheist) because it is simply the result of your brain chemistry being acted upon by its environment.

More to come...

Jeremy Oxford

March 5th 2003, 05:20 AM

THE FIVE SOLAS:

"In a nutshell, according to your worldview, you can't help thinking the way you do (being an atheist) because it is simply the result of your brain chemistry being acted upon by its environment."

Oxford:

WoW, the whole post was great. I am a baby to TAG. I am at this point in my life at a place to were I see it to be the only true and relient apologetic in which to present the Gospel.

I have learned much by reading your post. God will honor your service and knowledge, brother.

I hknow I have much to work on, but how was my first post to Powell. I am interested to know if my studies are paying off.
Here @ my school I am only one of few who who stand by TAG..Most here on campus are either Classical or Integrated Apologist.

Jeremy

TheFiveSolas

March 6th 2003, 12:55 AM

Jeremy,
Despite being a little rough around the edges your post was, for the most part, right on the money (and also quite pastoral in the way it voiced your concern for John Powell).

Void,
I hope to be addressing your last post either later on tonight (Wednesday) or tomorrow night. I'm enjoying the exchange, thanks again!

TheFiveSolas

March 7th 2003, 02:35 PM

Void,
Ok here goes...

My concern with your post is that it is a self referential argument. It seems to me you are arguing that you can know that Scripture is unambiguous because Scripture affirms that it is unambiguous...

If Scripture is what it claims, namely the propositional revelation of an all-powerful and rational God who created man in His image, then it logically follows that His Word is able to be understood.

As I've argued in an earlier thread, Scripture is ultimately authoritative in what it teaches since it is the verbal communication of God to man. So, rather than being a self-referential argument it is an argument from an ultimate self-attesting authority. Or to put it another way, self-referential arguments aren't fallacious if it is God who is the source of the information/knowledge being discussed (since God's authority and knowledge is exhaustive in scope).

I would also argue that words have meanings that are to a certain extent objective to the individual and therefore can be correctly understood by more than just the speaker/writer.

You continued:

The problem here is that the decision to regard Scripture as unambiguous comes from within human minds. When some one(sic) reads Scripture or listeners (sic) to some one(sic) preaching from Scripture they experience this through the filter of the human mind.

I have a couple of responses to this.

1) I deny the assertion (which is actually a begging of the question at hand) that human minds invented the "idea" that Scripture is perspicuous (Note: I've actually asserted that the main points of Scripture, i.e., God exists, created the world for a purpose, is sovereign, good, holy, rational, created man with the capacity to understand the world, etc., are clearly taught in Scripture BUT there are also peripheral issues that are more difficult to understand). Rather, I've asserted that if Scripture is what it claims, the verbal revelation from God to man, then its origin (including what it claims about itself, in this instance its clarity) comes from the mind of and all-knowing God, and NOT from man.

2) I cannot deny that what we read in Scripture is "filtered" through our "human mind". However, this isn't a problem since in the Christian worldview, the mind of man was created/designed for a purpose (to understand the world around us, use logic and reason, etc.). Therefore, within the Christian worldview it makes rational sense for me to assert that man has the capacity to understand what Scripture says since, as I've already pointed out, it is our view that words are not utterly subjective/individualistic AND man's mind is not the result of millions of years of accidents, but rather was designed for this very purpose (i.e., understanding God's revelation in nature and Scripture).

(more to come after I get some lunch :tongue: )

TheFiveSolas

March 10th 2003, 01:20 AM

Void,
I know, I know, you are thinking, "that was one LONG lunch!" :rofl: Let's just say I was experimenting with the European (specifically French) concept of lunch.

To continue with your rebuttal, you wrote:

From the perspective you are advancing; please correct me if I have misinterpreted your position, on one hand our intellects are choked with sin, we can not trust them on the other those who claimed to be saved cannot agree on an interpretation.

To clarify, I'd say that our intellects are still able to understand God's Word, His revelation in nature, etc. However, I would say that our USE (more correctly misuse) of intellect is what is problematic. Due to our sin we, prior to conversion (specifically, God sovereignly regenerating the sinner by raising him from spiritual death to life), willfully suppress the truth we know about God.

Therefore, we cannot trust our fallen autonomous intellect but once we submit our intellect to God's authority it is once again put to its proper (and originally created) use. Reason is a tool, one that was created to be used as God purposed (subject to His knowledge and revelation), and not autonomously. Only when reason is put in its proper place, subject to the objective revelation of the ONE that created our mind and the world in which it exists, do we have any hope of a correctly interpreting ANYTHING.

As I've stated in an earlier post. God's revelation in Scripture provides an objective referent by which interpretations can be checked and adjusted.

In an earlier post you wrote:

Scripture is incoherent, by this I mean it supports multiple contradictory sets of beliefs and can be used to justify them all

This, coupled with what I quoted above, seems to be the current thrust of your argument. How can the Bible be said to be the epistemological foundation for intelligibility IF even Christians can't agree on what it says?

Now, I do realize that many sects, cults, etc., make the CLAIM that their "interpretation" is supported by Scripture, but I deny that Scripture is a "wax nose" that can be bent and shaped to fit any and all views. This naturally flows from what I argued for in a previous post, namely that words have objective meaning. Therefore, I deny that any and all "interpretations" can be "justified" or "supported" by Scripture.

I should also point out that merely asserting that Scripture "supports multiple contradictory sets of beliefs" AND "can be used to justify them all" isn't proof that this is TRULY the case. Rather, it is a faith committment on your part. (Note: I love to show my students how EVERYONE starts with faith, but that not all faith is justified).

If someone comes to an interpretation that is contradictory, they can be sure of one thing, the problem isn't with the Bible, its with their understanding/interpretation of it.

In addition, your assertion is rather ambiguous since it doesn't give any concrete examples. The vast majority of differences in interpretation aren't over what Scripture says, but over what it doesn't say. For example, there are several differences over mode of baptism, but this is the case because Scripture doesn't specifically address the MODE (i.e., sprinkling vs. dunking). On such issues there is freedom since God's Word doesn't specifically deal with it.

Lastly, TAG deals with foundational issues, such as the nature of the universe (Did God create it for a purpose?, Is the universe unpredictable and random or is God in full control? etc.), the nature of man (is man the result of millions of years of accidents, or was he created/designed for a purpose?).

This makes many of the "interpretational" differences between say, mode of baptism, to ALL fall WITHIN the Christian worldview. Our general conception of the world and our place in it are the same, as is our authority (God's Word).

voidhawk

March 10th 2003, 06:05 PM

FiveSolas,

I have just sent you a private message.

More posting soon.

TenDimensions

March 10th 2003, 09:59 PM

03-03-2003 @ 04:04 AM
Jeremy Oxford:
You can not show me under your microscope that God does not exisist nor that Jesus was His son who came to die that the lost might be saved. Nor can I under the same lens prove to you that he is. So searching for empiricles on this issue is a dead end , in that science neither proves nor disproves.

Right. And since science is the only thing that can give us the best approximation of the truth to physical reality let's all admit a belief in God is purely faith based and call it like it is.

TenDimensions

March 10th 2003, 10:39 PM

02-27-2003 @ 11:20 PM
TheFiveSolas:
Let me start with a this rhetorical question.

If I place ten people into a room with a Bible and tell them each to read it. Then when they come out I find that they have ten different interpretations, where is the variable? The Bible or the people? The answer should be obvious.

Really? Ever take a literary appreciation class? There are two aspects to reality that I think you're missing:

1) There is a physical reality that exists whether people observe it or not. This physical reality is the medium by which we exist in and travel through while we interact with each other.

2) Each and every self-aware organism also constructs a version of that reality in their brains' in order to navigate through that common physical reality.

So while it is true that ten people reading the same book (any book) and coming to ten different interpretations does not necessarily mean the book was physically different for each of them - it doesn't somehow mean that the words in the Bible are Truth since they are meaningless without a reader to put those words into their subjective mind. Each of them will describe the glass which is partially filled with water differently - it does not mean the water glass is changing states or that half-full is a correct answer over half-empty. It means that the artificially constructed reality in our brains is subjective as soon as it enters through one of my five senses and that the glass is both half-empty and half-full at the same time.

This is why we invented science. Through repeatable experiments and observations groups of people were able to agree on certain things in a very dry, systematic and (usually) unemotional way. If anything is obvious it's that science is the only thing that can determine what exactly the physical reality is made up of. And last I checked science doesn't go around trying to interpret texts.

Or, if I found that of the 250 students in an Organic Chemistry lecture all of them focused on different aspects of the lecture (i.e., some were more interested in one part of the lecture over another), does that mean that the lecture itself didn't convey true knowledge or a valid foundation for knowing about Organic Chem?

That's a pretty big philosophical question. If the professor spoke but no one listened, did he teach a class? I'd be willing to argue that.

What if out of the 250 students taking Org. Chem. seventy failed the course, does that mean that the Professor was wrong in what he was teaching?

Actually it could. Did you never get something wrong on a quiz because the answer key was wrong? Did you not have to argue as politely as possible with the teacher because they were wrong and you were right? You're clearly talking about subjective events in an implied objective manner that I think is slightly misleading.

Of course not. Some students may have been lazy and didn't listen to the lectures. Some students might not have come to every lecture and so missed some of the crucial information they needed. Some students didn't read the entire textbook, etc.

Of course, all valid. Including that the professor could stink. How exactly can one go about proving that?

So, when it comes to Christianity, the variety of interpretations stem from the people, not the Bible.

I agree. But the Bible is meaningless without people to read it and understand it. And so it seems we're in a quandary. The variety of interpretations stem from the people yet the fallible people are necessary for the Bible to even have any meaning in the first place because it is the people bringing meaning to the words. So, how exactly can you reach a True interpretation?

In fact, the Bible explains why this is the case.

I'd be most interested to see how the Bible explains that while every single solitary person on the planet is fallible and the reading of words on a page requires those meanings to pass into the brains of subjective minds how exactly an absolute Truth can be arrived at.

In addition, the Christian worldview can rationally account for the variations that you pointed out. People are sinful and suppress the truth when they don't like what the truth asserts.

This can easily be attributed to two things not one as you implied: 1) people don't like what the truth asserts or 2) the truth is wrong. So tell me, exactly how do you figure out which of the two choices are right? You only think there is one choice (the first one) when people rebel against what you consider to be the Truth.

Since Christians (and non-Christians) are sinful, they are fully able to pick and choose what they like from Scripture and discard the rest.

I completely agree, although I don't think Christians have the corner market on that particular behavior. :smile:

We are also able to come to the Scriptures with false assumptions and expectations, imposing those underlying assumptions UPON Scripture rather than letting Scripture correct them. We are also able to be lazy by not reading the "textbook" in its entirety. Or we can be ignorant of things like grammar, context, cultural setting, etc.

I see what you're saying here, really I do. But what I can't understand is how you can say that a written book can after careful "true" studying have only one single interpretation. I doubt any English major would agree with that. Sure, I'm not saying the "big picture" isn't painted pretty clearly - even if there are a few twists and turns, but that's not exactly the point you're trying to make, is it?

All of the above factors contribute to the phenomena of varying interpretations, but sin is the greatest factor. This is where the Christian worldview is most needed. The realm of redemption. We not only need to be saved body and soul, but also in the realm of our mind/reason/intellect.

I'm not sure I'm following you now. Are you claiming that as a result of the Fall our mind/reason/intellect is flawed as well? Then what's the point of trying to use reason at all?

Without such a salvation, intellectually we would be left "with both feet firmly planted in mid air" and NO WAY of being rescued from such a predicament. Without God's salvation we would forever be in the position of having myriad opinions with NO hope of ever finding out which, if any, are true.

Well then. That explains why I think there is no Truth but only a good approximation that we can get at over time that constantly is changing and shifting as new evidence emerges - I'm clearly not saved!! :rofl:

The Bible instructs believers to "study to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, and who CORRECTLY handles the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15.

Are you implying that truth can only come to those who are saved? I don't think I'm understanding that correctly because that seems like a clear catch-22. If I can't arrive at the Truth until I'm saved then how am I ever supposed to clearly examine the text and come to know the Truth and be saved?

Therefore, since the Bible is the propositional revelation (in normal human language) of an all-powerful God, we have a means by which errors (including those of interpretation) can be corrected.

Are you making the claim that during the history of reading the Bible popular interpretations have changed through additional evidence or are you claiming that an individual who at first may see a contradiction will see that contradiction disappear if they spend enough time reading and studying and reading the Bible?

We have a referent point to which we are anchored epistemologically, no other worldview provides such a firm foundation.

I doubt this still needs to be stated, :smile:, but I don't think people can anchor to any sort of solid foundation. The best we can hope for is to shoot for a constantly moving target in the form of truth and do our best to improve ourselves individually as well as a race while doing as little harm as possible to each other. I find myself a lot more tolerant of different cultures and people when I accept that no one has the right answers and everyone is just trying to bring some meaning to their lives in order to feel fulfilled.

Morimotus

March 11th 2003, 03:30 AM

This is a veeeeeery interesting thread. :thumb:

Berean

March 11th 2003, 07:11 PM

TenDimensions

March 11th 2003, 11:58 PM

03-11-2003 @ 06:11 PM
Berean:

You seem to be anchoring yourself to a solid foundation here. :rofl:

To the fact there there is no foundation to anchor oneself to? I suppose one could look at it that way. But that's really what Socrates (the original, not the one here) tried to teach us. His whole purpose was to go around asking questions of wise men who thought they knew all the answers and by the time he was through with them they never failed to realize just how much they didn't know.

TheFiveSolas

March 12th 2003, 12:27 AM

TenDimensions,
I hope to have a chance to answer some of your points late Thursday night.
Thanks for the challenge!

TheFiveSolas

March 13th 2003, 12:25 AM

TenDimensions wrote:

since science is the only thing that can give us the best approximation of the truth to physical reality let's all admit a belief in God is purely faith based and call it like it is.

and also:

This is why we invented science. Through repeatable experiments and observations groups of people were able to agree on certain things in a very dry, systematic and (usually) unemotional way. If anything is obvious it's that science is the only thing that can determine what exactly the physical reality is made up of.

I have two comments (maybe three) on this assertion:

1) Belief in God is not "purely faith based", it is based on faith and evidence. I get the impression that your definition of "faith" is "believing without evidence" or at worst "believing against evidence". I'll merely point out that is not the definition of faith that I hold to.

2) Science relies on the principle of induction. The BELIEF (read: faith) that the way things have acted in the past are causally connected to how they will act in the future. Many philosophers (David Hume, Bertrand Russell, etc.) have pointed out how this belief is not justified (though I've argued that it is justified, but only within the Christian worldview).

Science ALSO relies on the reliability of our senses, the rationality of our mind, AND the BELIEF that we are able to freely CHOOSE (free will/choice) how to think about the world around us. As I've pointed out several times, all three of these beliefs are PRECLUDED (ruled out) in the atheistic/materialistic worldview.

Lastly, I don't deny the validity of science or the scientific method. Rather, my backround is in the hard sciences (Biology and Chemistry). I believe that our scientific endeavers are fruitful BECAUSE the world is as the Bible describes it (i.e., rational, logical, ordered, etc.) AND our minds (and senses) were designed to bring us into meaningful contact with it.

Berean

March 13th 2003, 01:00 AM

TenDimensions:
I doubt this still needs to be stated, :smile:, but I don't think people can anchor to any sort of solid foundation. The best we can hope for is to shoot for a constantly moving target in the form of truth and do our best to improve ourselves individually as well as a race while doing as little harm as possible to each other. I find myself a lot more tolerant of different cultures and people when I accept that no one has the right answers and everyone is just trying to bring some meaning to their lives in order to feel fulfilled.
Berean:
You seem to be anchoring yourself to a solid foundation here. :rofl:
TenDimensions:
To the fact there there is no foundation to anchor oneself to? I suppose one could look at it that way. But that's really what Socrates (the original, not the one here) tried to teach us. His whole purpose was to go around asking questions of wise men who thought they knew all the answers and by the time he was through with them they never failed to realize just how much they didn't know.
Of course I was only being contrary :wink: ,but I think there is still a point there.

TenDimensions

March 13th 2003, 05:06 PM

03-12-2003 @ 11:25 PM
TheFiveSolas:

1) Belief in God is not "purely faith based", it is based on faith and evidence. I get the impression that your definition of "faith" is "believing without evidence" or at worst "believing against evidence". I'll merely point out that is not the definition of faith that I hold to.

The word faith does have different definitions, certainly. The faith you have in your parents (trust), the faith you have in the sun coming up tomorrow, and the faith you have in God are three very different kinds of faith and presumably are held by people for different reasons with varying amounts of evidence. I don't disagree that human language can be extremely limited.

I definitely think there is a definition of faith that involves a lack of evidence, a "gut feeling" so to speak. I'm sure that some believers feel they have evidence and other believers feel it is a matter of faith. My personal feeling is that a belief in God does boil down to a faith without evidence because I feel as though there isn't evidence. But that's why we're discussing this, isn't it?

2) Science relies on the principle of induction. The BELIEF (read: faith) that the way things have acted in the past are causally connected to how they will act in the future. Many philosophers (David Hume, Bertrand Russell, etc.) have pointed out how this belief is not justified (though I've argued that it is justified, but only within the Christian worldview).

Let me make this statement and see what you think. I agree that certain scientific theories and principles depend on laws being the same today as there were yesterday. But that is not a central tenet of the scientific methodology - that is simply a required presumption for some theories. Science in some cases can help us predict the physical future (e.g. where planets and asteriods will be tomorrow, how fast erosion is taking place at Niagara Falls) and that depends on certain forces being constant. Science does not require the laws to be constant. Some of science's formulated theories may depend on the laws to be constant, but science would not fall apart if suddenly it was discovered that gravity were getting weaker with time. The only thing that would make science (and pretty much everything else) useless would be random, unpredictable changes in natural law making observation and experimentation meaningless. (Sort of like a higher power suspending them for his own purposes. :brow:)

Science ALSO relies on the reliability of our senses,

No - it doesn't rely on our senses at all - that's why scientific ideas must be independently verified by others before achieving acceptance. The more crazy the idea, the more independent verification required. No reliability on our senses is required unless by this statement you mean the entire race. If so, well then, let's pack up our bags and go home because you might as well be arguing that we're all living in The Matrix. There are certain things we need to build other logical steps upon and one of them is that we're all existing together in the same physical reality. Science is the method by which we can all come to the same agreement about the nature of that physical reality.

the rationality of our mind,

That's certainly true. We have to believe that the majority of us are sane otherwise again, like above, the whole thing doesn't matter.

AND the BELIEF that we are able to freely CHOOSE (free will/choice) how to think about the world around us.

This I completely disagree with. What part of the scientific method requires free will? At best you could make an argument for human imagination to play a role in scientific discovery, but free will does not factor in the least when it comes to observations, experimentation, and verifiable results.

As I've pointed out several times, all three of these beliefs are PRECLUDED (ruled out) in the atheistic/materialistic worldview.

Is it fair to expect someone who is arguing for the "other side" to accurately represent the opposition's viewpoint? How many atheists do you feel accurately represent the teachings of the Bible? That aside, you're right about atheism ruling out free will, although I'm quite certain that is an extremely misrepresented idea by most believers.

However, I know nothing about atheism ruling out rationality - in fact, humanism depends on it! The ability to reason with a person is one of the most central components to avoiding dogmatic rule and deadly conflict. But again, I fear words are too limiting when engaging in a topic so complicated and deep. The ability for the human brain to reason through a problem doesn't guarantee that it always acts rationally. In fact, for most of the day none of us are really ever reasoning through situations or we'd move at the pace of snails. Precious few of us really spend any time really thinking and attempting to exercise whatever little free will we might have. Because the bottom line is that as long as you aren't thoroughly examining your motivations and actions for every thing you do then you are an automaton reacting and being acted upon by your environment.

Lastly, I don't deny the validity of science or the scientific method.

Not to grind this point home, but how could you? Technology is applied science and no one can argue that we are on an unprecendented exponential technological growth curve as a direct result of the Renaissance era where it really all began.

I believe that our scientific endeavers are fruitful BECAUSE the world is as the Bible describes it (i.e., rational, logical, ordered, etc.) AND our minds (and senses) were designed to bring us into meaningful contact with it.

You most certainly have the right to belief this. However, that assertion is faith and faith alone. Your belief is that BECAUSE the universe contains laws that CAN be understood by man then it means that the two must be related somehow, but there is no logical reason why the two should be related.

You apparently miss that evolution provides a very good reason as to why our senses bring us "into meaningful contact" with our environment. In fact, evolution would predict that our senses would only bring us into meaningful contact with our environment as is necessary for survival and that's exactly what it has done. Clearly, there is much more to our environment that has only been detected and discovered through our use of artificial tools. Our senses fall far short of being able to see our environments beyond the bare necessities for survival. Surely the sunsets would be a thousand times richer and more beautiful if our eyes could detect even a fraction more of the light spectrum.

And by the way, if we're learning anything about the universe it is that it is a lot less rational and logical than we used to think. Unless, of course, you believe quantum mechanics somehow seems rational and logical.

John Powell

March 13th 2003, 05:32 PM

THEFIVESOLAS:
AND the BELIEF that we are able to freely CHOOSE (free will/choice) how to think about the world around us.

TENDIMENSIONS:
This I completely disagree with. What part of the scientific method requires free will? At best you could make an argument for human imagination to play a role in scientific discovery, but free will does not factor in the least when it comes to observations, experimentation, and verifiable results

POWELL:
This is a very interesting discussion that I don't want to intrude too much into except to say that I think the scientific method, in fact all normal human decision making, requires free will. One of my definitions for free will is the freedom to will, the ability to decide to do a thing.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist

John Powell

March 13th 2003, 05:45 PM

TheFiveSolas:
2) Science relies on the principle of induction. The BELIEF (read: faith) that the way things have acted in the past are causally connected to how they will act in the future. Many philosophers (David Hume, Bertrand Russell, etc.) have pointed out how this belief is not justified (though I've argued that it is justified, but only within the Christian worldview).

POWELL:
I don't want to intrude too much into this interesting discussion except to mention the following.

At some point I will present my arguments that so-called deductive arguments are actually statistical in nature. Philosophers have made a big deal about defining things to be true and, so, by definition they are true and have called that "deduction" and too often they've criticized scientists for admitting that their reasoning is based on statistics and the uniformity of nature principle and so, the philosophers argue, it must be a less reliable method of truth determination than their own.

I'm going to try to knock philosophers off the high tower they think they can put themselves on after Galileo and others knocked them off so long ago.

John Powell
Slayer of those who put the "love of wisdom" above "knowledge."

TenDimensions

March 13th 2003, 08:45 PM

03-13-2003 @ 04:32 PM
John Powell:

POWELL:
This is a very interesting discussion that I don't want to intrude too much into except to say that I think the scientific method, in fact all normal human decision making, requires free will. One of my definitions for free will is the freedom to will, the ability to decide to do a thing.

Free will is something that I've only recently decided people really don't have - at the very least whatever little free will we might have people don't use very often.

The problem I ran into is that if we are entirely physical in nature without any evidence to the contrary - what's this "free will" stuff that people always are talking about? Where would it come from? Why should we have any more ability to make decisions than any other animal?

My conclusion is that we don't. It is a wholly separate topic, though.

John Powell

March 13th 2003, 09:33 PM

TenDimensions:
Free will is something that I've only recently decided people really don't have - at the very least whatever little free will we might have people don't use very often.

The problem I ran into is that if we are entirely physical in nature without any evidence to the contrary - what's this "free will" stuff that people always are talking about? Where would it come from? Why should we have any more ability to make decisions than any other animal?

My conclusion is that we don't. It is a wholly separate topic, though.

POWELL:
Perhaps it's how you define the term.

Did I say that animals can't decide to do a thing, don't have free will? What I might argue is that animals are more controlled by instinct than we are. Perhaps we should put "moral" decisions as an essential part of free will, but even if we did that, I suspect that at least some animals, especially "higher" mammals, can behave in such a way that it looks like they are making moral-like decisions.

I see free will as the natural consequence of having a mind that can make decisions, choose between alternatives. It's not a gift from God separate from the creation of our decision-making power. Robots controlled by a program or animals or fetuses or newborns controlled entirely by instinct would NOT have free will as I see it.

John Powell

psychopath

March 14th 2003, 01:38 AM

I see free will as the natural consequence of having a mind that can make decisions, choose between alternatives.

John, according to your adherence to atheism, am I right in assuming that you think our actions are completely mediated by our physical nervous system, apart from any immaterial soul, spirit, etc.? If so, I do not see how such a view can allow for the existence of free will. Though the physical brain is certainly highly organized and complex, it is, ultimately, just the combinations of millions and millions of chemicals, cells, proteins, etc. I see no way in which such an organ can bring forth a true "choice" - chemicals obey the laws of nature, so any action one takes seems to boil down to the chemical makeup of one's nervous system at that instant. "Free will" is illusory. I really didn't choose to respond to your post; in actuality, due to the specific combination of chemicals that constituted my brain when I read your post, I had no choice but to respond. I didn't have the ability to not respond, because that would require a differenct combination of chemicals; since chemicals obey the laws of nature, the possibility of this different combination was zero, because it would've required that the chemicals in my brain act in disaccord with these laws (ask if that sentence didn't make sense). And the same applies for any action (or lack thereof) that occurs. What occurs within the brain is predetermined by one's genes, environment, etc., which is predetermined by things such as your parents' genes, environment, etc., in a chain that, presumably, goes all the way back to the Big Bang.

In other words, how can I actively choose to do A, as opposed to not-A, if actions are purely the product of biochemical reactions?

John Powell

March 14th 2003, 02:19 AM

POWELL:
I see free will as the natural consequence of having a mind that can make decisions, choose between alternatives.

PSYCHOPATH:
John, according to your adherence to atheism, am I right in assuming that you think our actions are completely mediated by our physical nervous system, apart from any immaterial soul, spirit, etc.?

POWELL:
Yes.

PSYCHOPATH:
If so, I do not see how such a view can allow for the existence of free will. Though the physical brain is certainly highly organized and complex, it is, ultimately, just the combinations of millions and millions of chemicals, cells, proteins, etc. I see no way in which such an organ can bring forth a true "choice" - chemicals obey the laws of nature, so any action one takes seems to boil down to the chemical makeup of one's nervous system at that instant.

POWELL:
You appear to have discovered a "mystery" I can't answer. I "feel" like I can decide to do A or B and every test I do confirms to me that I am not compelled to do only one, but I don't know how a biological machine could achieve that state of affairs.

PSYCHOPATH:
"Free will" is illusory.

POWELL:
I must admit that you might be right, but my life is demonstrably more efficient if I assume I have the power to make decisions rather than that I do not have that power, so I'll continue living with that assumption until some neural scientist persuasively explains to me what's really going on inside the brain.

PSYCHOPATH:
I really didn't choose to respond to your post; in actuality, due to the specific combination of chemicals that constituted my brain when I read your post, I had no choice but to respond. I didn't have the ability to not respond, because that would require a differenct combination of chemicals; since chemicals obey the laws of nature, the possibility of this different combination was zero, because it would've required that the chemicals in my brain act in disaccord with these laws (ask if that sentence didn't make sense).

POWELL:
I think I understand it. You're making a good point.

PSYCHOPATH:
And the same applies for any action (or lack thereof) that occurs. What occurs within the brain is predetermined by one's genes, environment, etc., which is predetermined by things such as your parents' genes, environment, etc., in a chain that, presumably, goes all the way back to the Big Bang.

POWELL:
That's a mystery that scientists need to figure out. Don't expect the answer to be discovered by theologians praying as they read the Bible. You will learn the answer about the same time I do.

PSYCHOPATH:
In other words, how can I actively choose to do A, as opposed to not-A, if actions are purely the product of biochemical reactions?

POWELL:
I don't know, but that's the way things appear to me to be.

Now, let me tell you what I think and believe, Psychopath.

I treat your problem similar to the way scientists treat Zeno's paradox about motion. Zeno had an argument that motion is an illusion. Scientists ignore that and go about their business as if motion is real and let philosophers figure out how to resolve Zeno's philosophical challenge.

I could argue that we all live in a Matrix-type world and you probably could not prove me wrong.

I seem to be able to make decisions, so that is a “fact” as far as I'm concerned. I will encourage the neural scientists and such to figure out how to explain this "fact." I hope and believe that the basically correct solution to this brain mystery will be discovered within, let’s say, 50 years.

I do not believe the answer is "man has a spirit." If that is the correct answer then I would insist that you identify physical experiments that can be performed to verify your "spirit" hypothesis for the decision making ability of humans. If you can't do this then it appears to me to be too much a non-scientific "God did it" sort of answer.

Besides, Psychopath, even if the answer WERE "man has a spirit" what makes you think that those spirits are not themselves bound to obey "spiritual" laws analogous to our own natural laws? For example, you might believe that God CANNOT sin because it's against His "spiritual" nature. Perhaps this is because it violates some "spiritual" law.

Even accepting the "man has a spirit" hypothesis, perhaps you have only moved the mystery of decision making from the brain to the "spirit." This does not seem to be an improvement because, at least in the case of the brain we have something we can experiment with and test our hypotheses with.

John Powell

voidhawk

March 14th 2003, 03:08 AM

Hi FiveSolas,

I’ll start with the points where I agree with you, then move on to where we diverge and what in my opinion this implies for TAG and Presuppositionalism.
Firstly

TheFiveSolas wrote
I should also point out that merely asserting that Scripture "supports multiple contradictory sets of beliefs" AND "can be used to justify them all" isn't proof that this is TRULY the case. Rather, it is a faith commitment on your part. (Note: I love to show my students how EVERYONE starts with faith, but that not all faith is justified).

I agree with this in part. It maybe that in Scripture there is a latent, exclusive, unambiguous and coherent message; my question would be how you could justify that this is the one true interpretation against the other competing interpretations that have equal faith that it is your interpretation that is in error.

I would contend that this is not an article of faith on my part but an observation of how believers behave. To re hash an already used example Universalists, tormentists annihilationists cannot all be right, these positions are mutually exclusive and all three groups quote scripture to support there position and declare it is the others who are in error.

TheFiveSolas wrote

If someone comes to an interpretation that is contradictory, they can be sure of one thing, the problem isn't with the Bible, its with their understanding/interpretation of it.

Just to clarify I am not asserting that people who have faith founded on Scripture find in it contradictions, they find it is the other denominations that have interpreted scripture in a fashion that contradicts there own, but they assert there is no contradiction either within Scripture or between their interpretation.
This is the incoherence that makes TAG unworkable as a system of apologetics. It presupposes there is a coherent rational Christian world view but one look at the systems of beliefs that take Scripture as there starting point shows that this is wishful thinking. All that is left for Presuppositionalism is argument by assertion; our interpretation of Scripture is right and the rest of you are wrong.
To follow on what makes it worse in my opinion (for what that’s worth LOL) is that these believers claim salvation: so to quote you

TheFiveSolas wrote

Therefore, we cannot trust our fallen autonomous intellect but once we submit our intellect to God's authority it is once again put to its proper (and originally created) use. Reason is a tool, one that was created to be used as God purposed (subject to His knowledge and revelation), and not autonomously. Only when reason is put in its proper place, subject to the objective revelation of the ONE that created our mind and the world in which it exists, do we have any hope of a correctly interpreting ANYTHING.

It seems to me that they have put reason in its proper place and made it subject to “the one that created our minds” but they can’t all be interpreting Scripture correctly. To get TAG and Presuppositionalism off the ground, by the standards of TAG and Presuppositionalism, it needs to be demonstrated there is a single unambiguous message in Scripture that all believers could claim adherence to.

Onward

TheFiveSolas wrote
Lastly, TAG deals with foundational issues, such as the nature of the universe (Did God create it for a purpose?, Is the universe unpredictable and random or is God in full control? etc.), the nature of man (is man the result of millions of years of accidents, or was he created/designed for a purpose?).

This makes many of the "interpretational" differences between say, mode of baptism, to ALL fall WITHIN the Christian worldview. Our general conception of the world and our place in it are the same, as is our authority (God's Word).

I agree with in the sense I can see there is a lot of common ground between mainstream denominations however what for you maybe a matter of interpretational differences may for some be a serious matter of principle and doctrine. For example, in this forum Socrates asserts that Unitarians are not Christian. Now if only Christians can come to Salvation this seems to me a serious point of issue, but of course Unitarians claim they are Christians and have the Scriptural passages to justify their position, and if the Universalists are correct we all are reconciled with God ultimately anyway.

Another example on another forum I observed a debate involving two professed Christians who claimed that God was not omniscient. God moved with through time with us and consequently could be surprised and change his mind. They quoted these passages in support.

Jeremiah 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

You are better placed than I to know if this supports the position they were asserting, but my point is they are saved so their minds and souls have been raised to life yet the position that God is not omniscient is not in accordance with what other professed, saved Christians appear to believe.

Just a couple more thoughts (starting to get tired)

TheFiveSolas wrote

1) I deny the assertion (which is actually a begging of the question at hand) that human minds invented the "idea" that Scripture is perspicuous (Note: I've actually asserted that the main points of Scripture, i.e., God exists, created the world for a purpose, is sovereign, good, holy, rational, created man with the capacity to understand the world, etc., are clearly taught in Scripture BUT there are also peripheral issues that are more difficult to understand). Rather, I've asserted that if Scripture is what it claims, the verbal revelation from God to man, then its origin (including what it claims about itself, in this instance its clarity) comes from the mind of and all-knowing God, and NOT from man.

I don’t believe that Scripture is necessarily perspicuous just that for Presuppositionalism and TAG to be valid it has to coherent, unambiguous so

TheFiveSolas wrote

If Scripture is what it claims, namely the propositional revelation of an all-powerful and rational God who created man in His image, then it logically follows that His Word is able to be understood.

But that word can be read several different ways by groups that claim to be saved, which to means it cannot be unambiguously understood.
While text like Scripture and Shakespeare can be used to support different interpretations of themselves, a piece of text like some computer programming code or a mathematical proof permit only one interpretation and while they maybe unambiguous they are not necessarily perspicuous.:smile:

TheFiveSolas wrote

In addition, your assertion is rather ambiguous since it doesn't give any concrete examples

I wasn’t sure here what kind of examples you wanted I’ve tried to give examples of denominations but did you want more references to passages in Scripture.

TheFiveSolas wrote

I would also argue that words have meanings that are to a certain extent objective to the individual and therefore can be correctly understood by more than just the speaker/writer.

I don’t feel I fully understand this point, maybe its my fallen intellect LOL or may it’s the fact it’s nearly 1am here. Could you enlarge explain a bit more please if not in this thread you could PM me.

I think I have given a response to most of your post, if there is anything you feel I missed or dodged let me know. I know I find it really irritating when someone doesn’t comment on a point that is really telling.

Did you get my responses to your PM?

VH

TenDimensions

March 14th 2003, 07:38 AM

03-14-2003 @ 12:38 AM
psychopath:

John, according to your adherence to atheism, am I right in assuming that you think our actions are completely mediated by our physical nervous system, apart from any immaterial soul, spirit, etc.? If so, I do not see how such a view can allow for the existence of free will. Though the physical brain is certainly highly organized and complex, it is, ultimately, just the combinations of millions and millions of chemicals, cells, proteins, etc. I see no way in which such an organ can bring forth a true "choice" - chemicals obey the laws of nature, so any action one takes seems to boil down to the chemical makeup of one's nervous system at that instant. "Free will" is illusory. I really didn't choose to respond to your post; in actuality, due to the specific combination of chemicals that constituted my brain when I read your post, I had no choice but to respond.

I'll try to describe this in another way: There are so many variables to the weather it appears as though it is random and completely unpredictable. However, there is nothing contributing to the cause of weather other than purely physical processes so we should be able to predict it perfectly, right?

Of course not, and it's the same with "free will". The choices you make are rooted in so many variables - including the sensations you experience right up until the second of decision making that it is impossible (and might always be) to predict what you're going to do next. For all intents and purposes it does look like "free will", but it's the brain outputing a decision based on the inputs plus past experience and its own wiring.

John Powell

March 14th 2003, 07:04 PM

Today @ 11:38 AM
TenDimensions:
I'll try to describe this in another way: There are so many variables to the weather it appears as though it is random and completely unpredictable. However, there is nothing contributing to the cause of weather other than purely physical processes so we should be able to predict it perfectly, right?

Of course not, and it's the same with "free will". The choices you make are rooted in so many variables - including the sensations you experience right up until the second of decision making that it is impossible (and might always be) to predict what you're going to do next. For all intents and purposes it does look like "free will", but it's the brain outputing a decision based on the inputs plus past experience and its own wiring.

POWELL:
Perhaps this is essentially the correct answer.

This could support the contention of some theists that we don't have free will. Perhaps God made our bodies such that we would do what He wanted. We really are "cuddly" robots after all.

This would make it even more important, to those who believe in free will, to argue that the body may be a machine but a free moral spirit controls it.

I'm not happy with the answer, Tendimensions, but when did reality care what I thought?

John Powell

TheFiveSolas

March 15th 2003, 01:06 AM

Void,
Thanks for the response, I'll try to rebut your points Saturday night! :thumb:

TheFiveSolas

March 16th 2003, 01:28 AM

Void,
I've been busy answering a few other Threads and also preparing for teaching tomorrow morning and so I'll have to address your critique on Sunday (most likely in the evening).
:brow:

psychopath

March 16th 2003, 03:10 AM

That's a mystery that scientists need to figure out. Don't expect the answer to be discovered by theologians praying as they read the Bible. You will learn the answer about the same time I do.

Well, I would probably go so far as to suggest that materialism precludes free will. The argument would go something like this:

1. A human being has the ability to act freely if he can do A or not-A.
standard definition of free will

2. According to materialism, the physical nervous system mediates all action.

3. A human being has no control over physical laws.
i.e., I cannot suspend the force of gravity at my own whim, or something like that

4. That which constitutes the physical nervous system (chemicals, proteins, etc.) obeys physical laws.

5. A human being has no control over his physical nervous system (from 3 & 4).

6. A human being has no control over his actions (from 2 & 5).

7. A human being's physical nervous system is either constituted to do A or not-A.

8. If it is constituted to do A, the human being must do A; if it is constitued to do not-A, the human being must do not-A (from 2 & 6).

9. Therefore, according to materialism, a human being cannot be free (from 1 & 8).

This is probably not as succinct as it should be, but it was just a first trial. Is there a part of this argument with which you disagree? If the argument happens to be sound, then it would seem to me that the materialist can never expect to find the answer to this "mystery." Materialism and free will seem to be logically incompatible.

I treat your problem similar to the way scientists treat Zeno's paradox about motion. Zeno had an argument that motion is an illusion. Scientists ignore that and go about their business as if motion is real and let philosophers figure out how to resolve Zeno's philosophical challenge.

I am not familiar with Zeno's paradox. Mind filling me in?

I could argue that we all live in a Matrix-type world and you probably could not prove me wrong.

I do not deny that this is a possibility. However, hypothetically speaking, if it was soundly proven that, in accordance with what I hold to be true, we DID live in a Matrix-type world, I would either change my view of the truth or accept the proof.

I seem to be able to make decisions, so that is a “fact” as far as I'm concerned. I will encourage the neural scientists and such to figure out how to explain this "fact."

But suppose that free will and materialism are shown to be incompatible. Would you still consider your decision-making ability a "fact"? That seems somewhat irrational to me (I mean no offense).

I do not believe the answer is "man has a spirit." If that is the correct answer then I would insist that you identify physical experiments that can be performed to verify your "spirit" hypothesis for the decision making ability of humans. If you can't do this then it appears to me to be too much a non-scientific "God did it" sort of answer.

Typically, the spiritual is juxtaposed with the physical. If something is physical, it is not spiritual; if it is spiritual, it is not physical. So asking for physical experimentation in order to verify the spiritual seems a little unfair. But maybe you were going by different meanings of the words.

I would not assume that the free will mystery "proves" God's existence. But I would argue that one cannot truly think/act rationally without free will. "Reason" and "logic" just become forms of thought that we don't control. If I use "logic" to come to a conclusion, it's only because I was predetermined to have a certain stream of thought flow, which is nothing more than dynamic combinations of chemicals that obey the laws of nature, that led to said conclusion. What makes one series of chemical combinations superior to another? Thus, "reason" and "logic" become meaningless (or, at least, worthless) - they are just whatever my thoughts happen to be, caused by forces outside my control, and I don't have any choice in the matter. There is no non-arbitrary reason to think that my thoughts/actions are any more rational than any other thoughts/actions. Therefore, I would say that, if one assumes he has the ability to think/act rationally, he is assuming he has free will. And if he assumes he has free will, it seems that he may also be assuming the existence of something immaterial.

Besides, Psychopath, even if the answer WERE "man has a spirit" what makes you think that those spirits are not themselves bound to obey "spiritual" laws analogous to our own natural laws? For example, you might believe that God CANNOT sin because it's against His "spiritual" nature. Perhaps this is because it violates some "spiritual" law.

I think for now I am not going to give my hypothesis as to what constitutes man's "free will." Hopefully you will not consider this me ducking; I just think we have enough on our plate for now. I do plan on putting forward my thoughts on this issue sometime, however.

I would say God cannot sin because such would violate the law of non-contradiction.

1. The Christian God is perfectly moral.
2. Sinning is immoral.
3. If the Christian God sinned, he would not be perfectly moral (from 2).
4. Therefore, the Christian God would not be the Christian God (from 1 & 3).

This is illogical. But, IMO, this is different than something disobeying a physical law - there is nothing inherently illogical about something, say, not obeying gravity. Physical laws are descriptive, as opposed to logically binding.

Oh yeah, if I do not respond to something you've said, it's because I think I've covered it in my given response. But if you ever think I failed to reply to something of importance, please let me know.

psychopath

March 16th 2003, 03:18 AM

I'll try to describe this in another way: There are so many variables to the weather it appears as though it is random and completely unpredictable. However, there is nothing contributing to the cause of weather other than purely physical processes so we should be able to predict it perfectly, right?

Presumably, the only reason we can't is because we don't have the knowledge/technology to factor in and correlate each and every one of these physical processes. But if we did, would you deny that we COULD predict it perfectly?

Of course not, and it's the same with "free will". The choices you make are rooted in so many variables - including the sensations you experience right up until the second of decision making that it is impossible (and might always be) to predict what you're going to do next. For all intents and purposes it does look like "free will", but it's the brain outputing a decision based on the inputs plus past experience and its own wiring.

So what makes an act free? The fact that we simply can't factor in all the variables? This would just just demonstrate a lack of knowledge on our part. In fact, the last clause of your quote seems to indicate that action, if we did know all the variables, would be perfectly predictable. This seems to preclude anything "free."

TenDimensions

March 16th 2003, 04:15 AM

Today @ 02:18 AM
psychopath:
Presumably, the only reason we can't is because we don't have the knowledge/technology to factor in and correlate each and every one of these physical processes. But if we did, would you deny that we COULD predict it perfectly?

Yes, if we possibly could know all the factors and have a machine powerful enough, yes, I believe we could model the weather for the Earth perfectly. However, in order to truly factor in every last variable I believe you'd need a machine as complex as another Earth. I'm not certain it could ever be done.

So what makes an act free? The fact that we simply can't factor in all the variables? This would just just demonstrate a lack of knowledge on our part. In fact, the last clause of your quote seems to indicate that action, if we did know all the variables, would be perfectly predictable. This seems to preclude anything "free."

So then I have a question for you: If God knows everything I'm going to do in advance you don't think that means I don't have free will, right? (Sorry for the double negative) I still have free will because those choices are still mine and an entity other than yourself having knowledge about those choices in advance doesn't take away your ability to make those choices, right? Same with a machine being able to predict the machine that is yourself.

In addition, a lack of knowledge behind your choices is exactly what a lot of people seem to think is free will. Any good psychologist can spend time with someone making poor decisions and eventually determine some type of motivation that the person may not be conscious of. Giving that person additional data to feed into their machine then helps change the choices being made, usually in an attempt to make better choices. Did the psychologist showing you your motivations behind poor decisions make those decisions any less yours somehow?

Of course, what I said about the complexity about the weather would be the same for a person. While I do think that someday (maybe soon) we'll be able to replicate everything a human brain does in a machine that still wouldn't mean we'd be capable of predicting actions. The machine capable of that would have had to mirror your life exactly down to every moment and up to every exact moment of your life. At best it would only be able to somehow mimic every choice you made since even last minute events in your environment could influence a decision. This is essentially the same problem we would have with predicting the weather.

For the record, because of the complexities of both machines, I doubt we'll ever be able to predict either with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't mean they aren't purely physical.

TheFiveSolas

March 17th 2003, 02:37 AM

Void,
Ok, its now after midnight (no longer Sunday :help: ) and I'm finally getting to your post.

Let me first start with an easy one.

You wrote:

Did you get my responses to your PM?

Yes, thanks again for the compliments and thanks for resending the PM, apparently TheologyWeb was having problems that day with their entire PM system.

Next...

TheFiveSolas wrote

I would also argue that words have meanings that are to a certain extent objective to the individual and therefore can be correctly understood by more than just the speaker/writer.

Void responded:
I don’t feel I fully understand this point, maybe its my fallen intellect LOL or may it’s the fact it’s nearly 1am here. Could you enlarge explain a bit more please if not in this thread you could PM me.

It must be your fallen intellect because it couldn't have been that you were tired (1am, sheesh, thats EARLY)! :rofl: (so much for me never using ad hominems!)

Seriously though, in the above quote I was responding to assertions such as the following.
You wrote:

Scripture is incoherent, by this I mean it supports multiple contradictory sets of beliefs and can be used to justify them all.

What I was attempting to point out is that words have objective meanings that exist (in a certain sense) APART from the individual. Therefore, Scripture cannot "be used to justify" all interpretations.

For example, when YOU use the word "rose" I am able to understand what that word means because the word is NOT solely something that you invented (i.e., it is NOT utterly subjective), but is a word that has meaning to MORE than just yourself. Even when the word has multiple possible meanings, context can be used to determine which definition is correct. For example, how the word "rose" is used will be an indication as to whether you are referring to the flower (when used as a noun) or the action of ascending (when used as a verb).

Because of this when a person speaks or writes they are able to be understood (unless, of course, the person is completely irrational).

There is a current postmodern literary theory called Deconstructionism (usually credited as being popularized by Jacques Derrida, among others). This theory asserts that all language systems are conventionional. In fact proponents argue that language systems are SO dependent upon social conventions that they are COMPLETELY ARTIFICIAL and therefore, must be either deceptive or false (or both).

Your argument seems to rely on this view of language (i.e., we cannot know what the Bible really means because language, specifically the meaning of the words used, is COMPLETELY the product of the person who wrote it. In other words, its entirely subjective). Some of your posts seem to imply this (i.e., your question as to what Shakespeare really meant by his plays).

Please correct me if I'm wrong regarding your view of language.

I deny this view of language and will simply point out that IF it were true, then LANGUAGE (words) could not be used to explain that it is true (i.e., it is a self-refuting proposition). In addition, dialogue such as the one we are currently engaged in would be meaningless (i.e., absurd) since what words mean to YOU would not be what they mean to ME. In fact, NO words would have meaning outside of the individual.

So, how does all of this rather LONG-WINDED reply fit in with your critique? Simple. If words have objective meaning, then what Scripture says can be compared to a person's interpretation to see if it corresponds or contradicts. Those that contradict CANNOT be said to be supported by the Bible (i.e., the Bible cannot be used to justify any and all interpretations).

As an aside, I need to point out that when a person tries to find out what Scripture teaches on a given topic they need to see what ALL of Scripture says on that particular topic.

This approach helps us to wade through the different interpretations regarding the nature of hell that you gave as an example.

You wrote:

To re hash an already used example Universalists, tormentists annihilationists cannot all be right, these positions are mutually exclusive and all three groups quote scripture to support there position and declare it is the others who are in error.

I agree that these positions are mutually exclusive. I also agree that the proponents of each make the CLAIM that Scripture backs up their position. I deny that Scripture, taken in its entirety, affirms all three positions.

For example, universalism is ruled out since Scripture states the following in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 :

This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Annihilationism is ruled out because Scripture also says in Revelation 14:9-11:
[quote]
9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

What we often find when looking at various interpretations is a denial of some texts in favor of others. In the example I just gave the wording of the text is quite clear which means that this clear wording must be either ignored or explicitely denied by those that affirm Universalism or Annihilationism.

Since this post is getting rather long AND I haven't dealt with anything other than this ONE issue I'll stop here and save the rest for Monday or Tuesday night.

Thanks again!

John Powell

March 17th 2003, 06:53 AM

POWELL:
That's a mystery that scientists need to figure out. Don't expect the answer to be discovered by theologians praying as they read the Bible. You will learn the answer about the same time I do.

PSYCHOPATH:
Well, I would probably go so far as to suggest that materialism precludes free will.

POWELL:
Seems to preclude . . .

PSCYHOPATH:
The argument would go something like this:

1. A human being has the ability to act freely if he can do A or not-A.
standard definition of free will

POWELL:
I began similarly before being advised by Tim Holt that "or" is not the proper truth-table logical term here. If you could only do A, could not do not A, then it would be true that you could do "A or not A," but that's not what is meant by having free will. The correct truth-table satisfying argument entails the possibility of doing both A and not A (but not at the same time).

PSYCHOPATH:
2. According to materialism, the physical nervous system mediates all action.

POWELL:
I would say "the laws of nature" or something like that rather than the physical nervous system. What about falling with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2? Is that an action that's mediated by the physical nervous system.

PSYCHOPATH:
3. A human being has no control over physical laws.
i.e., I cannot suspend the force of gravity at my own whim, or something like that

4. That which constitutes the physical nervous system (chemicals, proteins, etc.) obeys physical laws.

5. A human being has no control over his physical nervous system (from 3 & 4).

POWELL:
This seems to follow from 3 and 4, but it flies in the face of common sense. I'll have to think some more about it. Ask me to think something and I can do it. That seems to indicate that I have some control. By the way, this doesn't seem to be a valid argument, so it can't be a sound argument.

PSYCHOPATH:
6. A human being has no control over his actions (from 2 & 5).

POWELL:
This flies in the face of common sense. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means that a lot of evidence needs to be brought to bear to be persuasive. A simple syllogism probably isn't sufficient.

PSYCHOPATH:
7. A human being's physical nervous system is either constituted to do A or not-A.

8. If it is constituted to do A, the human being must do A; if it is constitued to do not-A, the human being must do not-A (from 2 & 6).

9. Therefore, according to materialism, a human being cannot be free (from 1 & 8).

This is probably not as succinct as it should be, but it was just a first trial. Is there a part of this argument with which you disagree?

POWELL:
Yes. It doesn't appear to be a valid argument. Premise 1 should be phrased as an "and" rather than an "or." Premise 6, in particular, flies in the face of common sense. I need to think some more about the others.

If you are going to claim this argument is sound then the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that each premise is true and that the conclusion follows from the premises. If you are merely claiming this argument is valid then you only need to show that IF the premises happened to be true then the conclusion would have to be true, could not be false.

PSYCHOPATH:
If the argument happens to be sound, then it would seem to me that the materialist can never expect to find the answer to this "mystery." Materialism and free will seem to be logically incompatible.

POWELL:
So it would seem. Appearances are sometimes mistaken.

POWELL:
I treat your problem similar to the way scientists treat Zeno's paradox about motion. Zeno had an argument that motion is an illusion. Scientists ignore that and go about their business as if motion is real and let philosophers figure out how to resolve Zeno's philosophical challenge.

PSYCHOPATH:
I am not familiar with Zeno's paradox. Mind filling me in?

POWELL:
http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/zeno_tort/index.asp

It has to do with dividing up the distance into an infinite number of halves.

POWELL:
I could argue that we all live in a Matrix-type world and you probably could not prove me wrong.

PSYCHOPATH:
I do not deny that this is a possibility. However, hypothetically speaking, if it was soundly proven that, in accordance with what I hold to be true, we DID live in a Matrix-type world, I would either change my view of the truth or accept the proof.

POWELL:
Likewise.

POWELL:
I seem to be able to make decisions, so that is a “fact” as far as I'm concerned. I will encourage the neural scientists and such to figure out how to explain this "fact."

PSYCHOPATH:
But suppose that free will and materialism are shown to be incompatible. Would you still consider your decision-making ability a "fact"? That seems somewhat irrational to me (I mean no offense).

POWELL:
No, I think if it were shown to me that materialism and free will were incompatible I would prefer materialism over free will. For the moment I treat it as a mystery and claim that I probably believe in fewer important mysteries than theists do.

POWELL:
I do not believe the answer is "man has a spirit." If that is the correct answer then I would insist that you identify physical experiments that can be performed to verify your "spirit" hypothesis for the decision making ability of humans. If you can't do this then it appears to me to be too much a non-scientific "God did it" sort of answer.

PSYCHOPATH:
Typically, the spiritual is juxtaposed with the physical. If something is physical, it is not spiritual; if it is spiritual, it is not physical. So asking for physical experimentation in order to verify the spiritual seems a little unfair. But maybe you were going by different meanings of the words.

POWELL:
To Mormons, "spirit" matter is a kind of matter that is more "pure and refined" whatever that means.

PSYCHOPATH:
I would not assume that the free will mystery "proves" God's existence. But I would argue that one cannot truly think/act rationally without free will. "Reason" and "logic" just become forms of thought that we don't control. If I use "logic" to come to a conclusion, it's only because I was predetermined to have a certain stream of thought flow, which is nothing more than dynamic combinations of chemicals that obey the laws of nature, that led to said conclusion. What makes one series of chemical combinations superior to another?

POWELL:
According to evolution, perhaps survival and procreative efficiency.

PSYCHOPATH:
Thus, "reason" and "logic" become meaningless (or, at least, worthless) - they are just whatever my thoughts happen to be, caused by forces outside my control, and I don't have any choice in the matter. There is no non-arbitrary reason to think that my thoughts/actions are any more rational than any other thoughts/actions. Therefore, I would say that, if one assumes he has the ability to think/act rationally, he is assuming he has free will. And if he assumes he has free will, it seems that he may also be assuming the existence of something immaterial.

POWELL:
Not necessarily worthless or meaningless any more than rethinkng "love" between the sexes as being of primarily biological rather than "spiritual' origin causes love to be worthless or meaningless.

POWELL:
Besides, Psychopath, even if the answer WERE "man has a spirit" what makes you think that those spirits are not themselves bound to obey "spiritual" laws analogous to our own natural laws? For example, you might believe that God CANNOT sin because it's against His "spiritual" nature. Perhaps this is because it violates some "spiritual" law.

PSYCHOPATH:
I think for now I am not going to give my hypothesis as to what constitutes man's "free will." Hopefully you will not consider this me ducking; I just think we have enough on our plate for now. I do plan on putting forward my thoughts on this issue sometime, however.

POWELL:
Ok, but I hope you seriously think about this. What I'm trying to do is pull your "spiritual" solution right out from under you. If "spirit matter" obeys "spiritual" laws sufficiently similar to how physical matter obeys "physical" laws, something I believed as a Mormon, then perhaps you really haven't solved the problem of free will by invoking a spirit.

PSYCHO
I would say God cannot sin because such would violate the law of non-contradiction.

1. The Christian God is perfectly moral.
2. Sinning is immoral.
3. If the Christian God sinned, he would not be perfectly moral (from 2).
4. Therefore, the Christian God would not be the Christian God (from 1 & 3).

POWELL:
I think this is a bad argument because it's equating the existence of a being with one of its possible attributes. It's conceivable that a super-powered being, a "God," exists who does not have all the attributes of the Christian God. Whether the attributes given to the Christian God change as theologians reconsider things or not should not affect the existence of God, if God exists. What might be disproven is that a certain concept of God represents a possible God or something like that.

PSYCHOPATH:
This is illogical. But, IMO, this is different than something disobeying a physical law - there is nothing inherently illogical about something, say, not obeying gravity. Physical laws are descriptive, as opposed to logically binding.

POWELL:
I don't think it's logically binding that God have any particular attribute, like omniscience or whatever. It is, however, logically binding that a certain concept of God include the attributes which define that God. For example, if the Christian God is defined to be omnipotent and if "omnipotent" means "can do anything, even that which humans might believe to be impossible" then if it is proven to someone that no being can do certain things like create square circles then that person should conclude that the Christian God cannot exist.

PSYCHOPATH:
Oh yeah, if I do not respond to something you've said, it's because I think I've covered it in my given response. But if you ever think I failed to reply to something of importance, please let me know.

POWELL:
Ok.

John Powell

psychopath

March 18th 2003, 01:47 AM

I am looking forward to continuing this discussion with each of you, but now that I am back at school my time here is limited. I am also involved in other discussions on the forum, so it may take me a few days to respond to your posts.

Satori

March 18th 2003, 04:59 PM

This thread is ridiculous and sad, a bunch of nice people trying to convince and reassure one another that their particular god story is somehow more accurate than all other theories. Wow, talk about being wrapped up in one's own subjectivity. My heart goes out to you all, just as it does to all jews and muslims too.

Christianity is as ridiculous as it is an insult to our collective intelligence, and no amount of lip service is going to change that.

Satori

Satori

March 18th 2003, 05:03 PM

It all starts with presumption, and then more presumption to justify and explain the initial presumption, and so on and so on, until what we are left with is a tangle of presumptuous nonsense that is so thick that we cannot see through it or beyond it.

I also think it extremely ridiculous how religious folks try to put on an air of empirical objectivity, as if you could actually be even remotely objective about something which you are metaphysically obligated and personally threatened to uphold and believe in. Sad and disheartening. :(

Flame on...

Satori

Satori

March 18th 2003, 05:05 PM

03-11-2003 @ 01:59 AM
TenDimensions:
Right. And since science is the only thing that can give us the best approximation of the truth to physical reality let's all admit a belief in God is purely faith based and call it like it is.

Again, you impress me with your ability to hit the nail on the head. Bravo!

Satori

Snowball

March 18th 2003, 06:02 PM

Today @ 03:59 PM
Satori:

This thread is ridiculous and sad, a bunch of nice people trying to convince and reassure one another that their particular god story is somehow more accurate than all other theories. Wow, talk about being wrapped up in one's own subjectivity. My heart goes out to you all, just as it does to all jews and muslims too.

Christianity is as ridiculous as it is an insult to our collective intelligence, and no amount of lip service is going to change that.

Wow! Talk about being wrapped up in one's own subjectivity!

I also think it extremely ridiculous how religious folks try to put on an air of empirical objectivity, as if you could actually be even remotely objective about something which you are metaphysically obligated and personally threatened to uphold and believe in. Sad and disheartening. :(

Metaphysically obligated and personally threatened? Huh? Christianity must be very different in Satori-world.

It seems to be that Satori is blissfully unaware of his own presuppositions. Just as well, as he is also blissfully unaware of his ignorance in many other things as well -- Christian theology, his sub-level intelligence, his inability to present an argument that doesn't contain a logical fallacy. :em7:

I'd say he's sad and disheartening, but he's so dang entertaining!

TheFiveSolas

March 19th 2003, 01:36 AM

Satori,
You love ad hominems yet you've been challenged in here to provide a rational account for freedom of will/choice/thought given YOUR underlying assumptions about the nature of reality. I've shown how your worldview cannot rationally account for those things you take for granted. You have yet to even attempt a rebuttal.

So, please try to defend the following:

1) That it is RATIONAL for you to believe that your senses and mind ACCURATELY bring you into contact with an external world when they are both the products of MILLIONS of years of ACCIDENTS.

2) That in a strictly physical world governed by physical laws you are still able to RATIONALLY account for freedom of thought/action even though your brain is made up SOLELY of atoms/molecules.

TheFiveSolas

March 19th 2003, 01:45 AM

Void,
I just finished with one student after another both on the phone and over the net and so I won't be able to give a long reply tonight (its now 12:37am).

What I will do is offer the following food for thought by quoting from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and then following up with a quote from the InternetInfidels own Jeffrey Jay Lowder's article entitled, "How Not to Refute Biblical Infallibility".

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

Article 4

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Also:

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

Lastly a couple of quotes from Jeffrey Jay Lowder:

Edelen is mistaken when he objects that an infallible Bible would "need an infallible interpreter, or infallible reader to infallibly interpret the infallible translations." For a text to be infallible does not require that anyone other than the author be able to interpret it infallibly, much less that everyone be able to do so.

Finally, it is false that "an 'infallible' bible would be worthless without 'infallible' readers who could 'infallibly' read an 'infallible' translation." Even if no one reads the Bible infallibly, people might still be able to read the Bible with a high degree of accuracy.

I'll try to post a more specific reply to your post tomorrow night.
:tongue:

TenDimensions

March 19th 2003, 11:14 PM

Today @ 12:45 AM
TheFiveSolas:
Article 4

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Five Solas, exactly what reasoning is used to put this assertion forward? The way it's worded here doesn't sound like a logical argument per se rather than a starting assertion to a series of logical steps built upon this premise.

Can you enlighten me?

Could you also expand a bit more on this quote you had from Jeffrey Jay Lowder?

Edelen is mistaken when he objects that an infallible Bible would "need an infallible interpreter, or infallible reader to infallibly interpret the infallible translations." For a text to be infallible does not require that anyone other than the author be able to interpret it infallibly, much less that everyone be able to do so.

Finally, it is false that "an 'infallible' bible would be worthless without 'infallible' readers who could 'infallibly' read an 'infallible' translation." Even if no one reads the Bible infallibly, people might still be able to read the Bible with a high degree of accuracy.

I can understand that quote from the perspective that if you and I read the Book of Genesis we're both going to get the same drift. What I'm not sure about is how we would both arrive at the idea that Adam and Eve were literally created and that the Flood really did occur. Simply based on the fact that the Bible doesn't outright tell you it's a parable? Therefore it must have been real? Isn't this an argument from silence where the Bible being silent on a subject doesn't necessarily mean it must be literal?

TheFiveSolas

March 20th 2003, 01:35 AM

Ten,
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was merely the culmination of a group of evangelical scholars attempting to put a definition (in the form of affirmations and denials) of what is meant by the term Inerrancy. Therefore, you are correct in your observation that Article 4 wasn't a logical argument, but was merely an assertion (more correctly, part of a definition).

The following is a quote taken from the second and third paragraph of the original document:

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.

This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition*. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago.

If you'd like to read the entire document (its fairly short), see the following site:

http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/biblical.htm

Now, with reference to your question about how we can determine which literary genre is being used (you asked about the creation account in Genesis) I would merely state that there are several ways this can be accomplished. The first is to see how the Bible, in other sections, interprets the section in question (for instance, how does Jesus or the Apostles understand the Genesis account). Secondly, we can look for the literary clues that are indicative of one genre versus another. For example, I think it was GrayPilgrim (who has some expertise in Hebrew) that pointed out, in another thread, that the Hebrew of Genesis 1-11 is grammatically no different from the historical narratives that follow.

The Chicago Statement addresses your question in Article 18:

Article XVIII. We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

TheFiveSolas

March 20th 2003, 02:19 AM

Void,
How are things going with the Korean exchange student? Did I tell you that I teach at a Korean church? I enjoy it immensely.

Ok, now "Let's get ready to RUMBLE!" :rofl:

In my preliminary responses to your criticism I've affirmed and defended the objectivity and perspicuity of language (i.e., when words are used they CAN be correctly understood). I've pointed out that the claim that language is utterly subjective and conventional is a self-refuting argument.

Therefore, if the above is true, then it necessarily follows that it is possible, when dealing with language used in the form of propositional phrases (as we find in the Bible), to arrive at a correct interpretation AND also be able to refute contradictory/erroneous ones.

My challenge to you is to ask how YOU can avoid the dilemma you attempted to use against TAG (i.e., that we have myriad interpretations (of reality, man, how we should live our lives, etc.) with NO way of knowing WHICH if ANY are correct)?

IF God does not exist then language IS solely a social convention and would be susceptible to ALL of the problems (and more) that you put forth (utter subjectivity, unknowability/ambiguity of word meaning/definition, inability to determine which if any interpretation, of a given text/phrase/etc. is correct).

I would argue that ONLY the Christian view of God, man, and thus language can rescue language from the realm of absurdity.

I also need to emphasize and reiterate a point that I made in one of my earliest responses to you. Namely that TAG does NOT deal with minute details (such as whether hell involves real fire). Rather, TAG deals with very broad generalities such as the NATURE of the universe and man, HOW we know what we know, and HOW we should live our lives.

Scripture clearly teaches these foundational issues. Some examples of which are:

1) God exists
2) He is personal
3) He is both immanent and transcendent
4) He alone is uncreated and eternal, all other things are created and contingent (i.e., all things other than Himself are dependent upon Him for their existence).
5) God created all things for a purpose
6) He is triune
7) He is rational
8) He is morally and intrinsically good, holy, righteous, merciful, just, etc.
9) He created man in His image and man is accountable to Him for his actions.
10) God has chosen to reveal truth about Himself, the world, and ourselves, in nature, Scripture, and ultimately in Christ.
11) God has revealed that man (and the entire creation) was originally created good, but rebellion spoiled this original state.
12) God has revealed that He has chosen, out of His love and mercy, to redeem mankind (and the created order) from this fallen state.

I could go on and on but the above serve as a good start for the validity of TAG's foundation. In other words, all of the things (logic, human freedom, objective morality, equal ultimacy of the one and the many, etc.) that TAG shows CANNOT be justified/accounted for in unbelieving worldviews (and shown to be supported within a Christian worldview) can be easily defended from CLEAR passages of Scripture.

I would also point out that ALL three major branches of Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) have ALL maintained that Scripture teaches what I listed above.

(Its now 1:19am and so I'll stop here. Plus I have some studying to do for an exam before I'm able to hit the sack!)

Talk to you soon.

voidhawk

March 20th 2003, 02:14 PM

Hello FS

I was waiting for them all your posts to come in before starting work on a response and I can see I have my work cut out. :smile:

I’m going to put something down tonight as it is only 18:00 here now.

Ji Hyun took the exam (I think she did better than she believes), but won’t get the results till she is back in Korea, so we will be unable to celebrate or commiserate with her. :bawl:

Thanks for asking.

Good luck with your studying.
VH

John Powell

March 20th 2003, 07:47 PM

SATORI:
This thread is ridiculous and sad, a bunch of nice people trying to convince and reassure one another that their particular god story is somehow more accurate than all other theories. Wow, talk about being wrapped up in one's own subjectivity. My heart goes out to you all, just as it does to all jews and muslims too.

Christianity is as ridiculous as it is an insult to our collective intelligence, and no amount of lip service is going to change that.

Satori

POWELL:
I am NOT saying that I disagree with your sentiments, Satori, but with your presentation.

When in this forum you move from respectful, logical discussion to red herring expressions of futility and disgust then you are basically admiting that you are unable to bring to bear logical arguments to your defense.

SATORI:
It all starts with presumption, and then more presumption to justify and explain the initial presumption, and so on and so on, until what we are left with is a tangle of presumptuous nonsense that is so thick that we cannot see through it or beyond it.

I also think it extremely ridiculous how religious folks try to put on an air of empirical objectivity, as if you could actually be even remotely objective about something which you are metaphysically obligated and personally threatened to uphold and believe in. Sad and disheartening. :(

Flame on...

Satori

POWELL:
This second one was not presented as badly as the earlier one, but I think still overdoing it. It would have made a world of difference, I think, if you had phrased your ideas / impressions / feelings as questions rather than unsupported assertions. Your comments probably belong in some other section having to do with the psychology of belief or something like that.

If you have a good argument then please present it. I, for one, could use some help around here.

John Powell

Snowball

March 20th 2003, 11:00 PM

Today @ 06:47 PM
John Powell:

If you have a good argument then please present it. I, for one, could use some help around here.

Don't hold your breath John! Satori is incapable of presenting an argument sans fallacy, as he demonstrates time and time again on these boards.

John Powell

March 21st 2003, 12:41 AM

Snowball:
Don't hold your breath John! Satori is incapable of presenting an argument sans fallacy, as he demonstrates time and time again on these boards.

POWELL:
I think we all have that trouble to some extent. I know I do.

I hope you're wrong about Satori being especially culpable. I should read more of his posts to see. Even if he hasn't done a good job up to now, we all can improve, especially if we want to.

Come on, Satori, help me present the the best arguments we atheists have. :cheers:

John Powell

psychopath

March 21st 2003, 03:02 AM

Yes, if we possibly could know all the factors and have a machine powerful enough, yes, I believe we could model the weather for the Earth perfectly. However, in order to truly factor in every last variable I believe you'd need a machine as complex as another Earth. I'm not certain it could ever be done.

Hypothetically speaking, how would such a machine be able to predict the weather? The key to the answer is the fact that each contributing factor obeys certain natural laws. For example, suppose the machine tells us that a NYC will get a snow storm precisely at noon tomorrow. It can only do this because it “knows” what each and every factor currently is, the exact effect each factor is going to have, and the exact outcome of this combination of effects. Given the total state of the Earth, atmosphere, etc. right now there is only one possible outcome for the weather tomorrow. This statement must be true, or else such a machine would not be possible.

Now, consider your analogy between the weather system and the physical nervous system, which mediates all human action (according to materialism). Likewise, based on the exact chemical makeup of my nervous system right now, there is only one possible way I can act tomorrow. If I wake up and put on blue jeans, it couldn’t have been any other way, because such would require a slightly different chemical composition of my brain right now which would ultimately lead to this differing outcome.

I guess I still don’t see how a materialist cannot accept strict determinism, which is directly opposed to any notion of human freedom.

If God knows everything I'm going to do in advance you don't think that means I don't have free will, right? (Sorry for the double negative) I still have free will because those choices are still mine and an entity other than yourself having knowledge about those choices in advance doesn't take away your ability to make those choices, right?

I agree.

Same with a machine being able to predict the machine that is yourself.

No. Suppose I have free will, meaning the ability to do A or not-A. The reason God knows what I will do is because he is able to look past my free will choice and see the outcome. A machine cannot do this; it can only “know” what I will do if every factor of my future action is definitively determinable. But if a free will choice is involved, this factor is not definitively determinable. The key is that God can actually see the future, and actually know what I chose. This hypothetical machine, or those who programmed it, cannot determine the outcome of my future free will choices, because it/they are stuck within the same temporal frame as my decisions.

For the record, because of the complexities of both machines, I doubt we'll ever be able to predict either with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't mean they aren't purely physical.

But you do seem to indicate that, if our technology became hypothetically complex and sophisticated enough, human action (and weather) would be perfectly predictable. An action is only perfectly predictable if it is the only possible action, given the complete set of data. Such precludes free will, because free will implies more than one possible course of action (i.e., A and not-A).

Pate

March 21st 2003, 03:13 AM

I opened a thread at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2111 for Satori, asking him to demonstrate that Christianity is irrational, as he claims (and I even offered him a chance to debate this formally). He has not been willing to do that. Of course there's no obligation for him to do so, but that surely would help us to take his claims more seriously.

TenDimensions

March 21st 2003, 08:35 AM

Yesterday @ 12:35 AM
TheFiveSolas:
Now, with reference to your question about how we can determine which literary genre is being used (you asked about the creation account in Genesis) I would merely state that there are several ways this can be accomplished. The first is to see how the Bible, in other sections, interprets the section in question (for instance, how does Jesus or the Apostles understand the Genesis account).

So one method of determining the Genesis account is real is to depend on people with 2,000 year old scientific understanding of the world? I'm not sure this is ground breaking proof even if those guys were absolutely convinced Genesis was spot on.

Secondly, we can look for the literary clues that are indicative of one genre versus another. For example, I think it was GrayPilgrim (who has some expertise in Hebrew) that pointed out, in another thread, that the Hebrew of Genesis 1-11 is grammatically no different from the historical narratives that follow.

The second part regards the grammar used? So because the grammar was similar or different leads people to determine logically that the Genesis book was a historical account? That seems like a lot riding on what amounts to nothing more than sentence structure to prove something as extraordinary as a world wide flood.

Is that really all the evidence for determining the Book of Genesis is a real historical record?

Actually, I'd be very interested to hear a list of the reasons why the account in Genesis is a historical account. I still maintain that this is an issue of pure faith since once your logical progression takes you outside the realm of natural law you can arrive at any conclusion you'd see fit.

TheFiveSolas

March 21st 2003, 10:39 PM

TenDimensions,
Either I misunderstood what you were asking or you misunderstood my response.

Your original question was:

What I'm not sure about is how we would both arrive at the idea that Adam and Eve were literally created and that the Flood really did occur.

At first glance this looked like you were asking what evidence/argument could be put forward to prove the HISTORICITY of the Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve and the Flood.

However, the sentences immediately following the above were:

Simply based on the fact that the Bible doesn't outright tell you it's a parable? Therefore it must have been real? Isn't this an argument from silence where the Bible being silent on a subject doesn't necessarily mean it must be literal?

Since my last few posts dealt with questions of linguistics and specifically Biblical interpretation I thought you were asking WHY we should understand the accounts in Genesis as historical narrative rather than as parables.

The reasons I gave were:
1) The grammatical construction is indicative of historical narrative.
And
2) Later Biblical texts refer to the Genesis and Flood accounts as being historical accounts rather than parables.

Now, if you want an argument as to why we should take the Biblical account as being true my position is that the Bible is a revelation of God. If this is the case, as I have argued throughout this thread, then it necessarily follows that what He says (has revealed) is true. Or to put it another way, God, as an eyewitness of the events described in Genesis, has given us His eyewitness testimony.

Of course, if you wish to deny the above then you will FIRST need to provide an alternative worldview that can account for, among other things, human freedom of thought/action, objective ethics, immutable immaterial laws of logic, and an objective epistemological foundation for KNOWING anything.

TenDimensions

March 22nd 2003, 12:52 AM

Today @ 09:39 PM TheFiveSolas:
TenDimensions,
Either I misunderstood what you were asking or you misunderstood my response.

I was joining the terms historicity with the concept that it actually happened. That was my mistake. But you're right - what I'm more interested in is how you come to the conclusion of the Genesis account being "true".

This is, after all, what this thread is about, right? The transcendental argument for God's existence. So you wrote what I understood as a challenge that you obviously believe can't be answered:

Of course, if you wish to deny the above then you will FIRST need to provide an alternative worldview that can account for, among other things, human freedom of thought/action, objective ethics, immutable immaterial laws of logic, and an objective epistemological foundation for KNOWING anything.

Earlier in this thread I posted to you here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=31925#post31925) that you seemed to enjoy as you posted a short response hoping you'd get the chance to reply more in depth. You did post a couple of quick comments here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=33656#post33656) to which I did respond (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=34129#post34129). If there is anything in those past posts you would care to address, please feel free. In the meantime, I'd like to go forward with proposing an alternate world view that handles "human freedom of thought/action, objective ethics, immutable immaterial laws of logic, and an objective epistemological foundation for KNOWING anything".

Of course, much smarter philosophers have no doubt tackled these issues before and much more eloquently, but I'm having fun so what the heck!

1) Human freedom of thought/action: Pretty much illusory. I've posted this in more depth elsewhere, but I'm too lazy to find it now. In summary, the physical processes that govern our brain can be compared to (in level of complexity) with the weather. Every single event that happens to you combined with your genetic code for wiring your brain in your unique way equals your thoughts and actions. Everything your brain does is a result of that amazingly complex data processing machine chewing on data and making decisions based on that data. Very little of what we do can not be found in animals at some more primitive level.

The bottom line on "free will" is that it is illusory and in fact, there is more evidence against free will than for it. To start with people are not constantly "thinking" using their higher brain functions for every single thing we do or we'd all move at the pace of snails! On top of that anyone who gets to know you well can usually predict your actions in set situations with a pretty good degree of accuracy. And finally, there are entire schools of science such as psychology and sociology that basically expose us for the machines we are.

This of course, takes no responsibility away from us - "I'm just a machine" can not be used as a defense because while you are a machine, you are a machine that is capable of processing data and so therefore you are responsible for collecting data before acting. Ignorance is never an adequate defense and if you know what you're doing is wrong then you have the data and should not be doing it. And of course, if you don't know the difference between right and wrong then you get to use the insanity defense and the law says you aren't responsible for your actions! :smile:

But then, it's also not that black and white either, is it? Should the abused child that is acting out in his teens be punished or given help and support?

2) Objective ethics: Ethics being a construct of the human brain are simply relative to the brains contemplating the ethics. Any "universal" ethics are merely universal because without them coming together in any constructive social order would be impossible (e.g. indiscriminate killing). But I'll defer to Plato on this one - he was realizing the mutability of "Truth" quite some time ago.

3) Immutable immaterial laws of logic: This is interesting I admit. I suppose by this you also mean math. I'm not sure saying that logic exists without a brain to observe it is accurate. Logic/math is not some etheral concept that our brains have slowly stumbled upon. It's more like our brains have slowly constructed the rules of logic and math based on simple basic starting principles. Essentially it was the start of science and science is the means by which we attempt to arrive at the physical truth of reality as best as possible. Logic/math/science are tools that mankind slowly has developed over the years and that tool has only reached maturity in the recent past couple of centuries. Does math/logic exist without a conscious being to use it? Is a hammer still a hammer if no conscious being exists to use it - let alone to be there to know what it is?

I'm pretty sure math and logic are not some etheral concept - they are tools that we've painstakingly been putting together over the centuries. If we cease to exist then all of our tools become meaningless, including the "immutable laws of logic".

4) Objective epistemological foundation for KNOWING anything: Again I think the Greek philosophers beat us to this one too. I'm pretty sure the field of studying the nature of knowledge is an entire field of philosophy, right? What's the name? I think it's epistemology (okay, I admit I'm being a smart ass there, but I couldn't help it since you used the word :smile: ). And last I checked I don't think all those philosophers studying it were in agreement that we can know anything for sure. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's one of the central ideas to the scientific methodology. Science never states anything with absolute certainty!

Science only makes statements that agree with the evidence of the day because that's really all we can ever know. Tomorrow with new evidence science will make new statements and then we'll know something else. But "knowing" is a fleeting concept - you only know something for as long as the data and evidence supports it. Come to think of it, wasn't it the Greek philosopher Socrates who went around doing nothing but asking questions of "wise men" showing them how little they actually "knew"?

All religious belief starts with one simple fact: a leap of faith. When people start believing their religious belief is right and someone else's religious faith is wrong disagreement starts. Then conflict. And then eventually, maybe not right away, but eventually, war erupts, people die, inquisitions start, and in general a lot of horrendous fighting escalates because two groups of people both think they are right in their unprovable leaps of faith. It's a dangerous position to take and the truly wise people are the agnostics.

I've found that certain religious people believe in not only the potential for Perfection in man after death, but they also believe in the concept of Absolute Truth. Both these concepts are fine and, in fact, again Plato spent much time talking about the "Plane of Ideals".

What I've been struggling with is how while the religious person will freely admit to not being able to achieve Perfection while alive they feel they are capable of knowing the Absolute Truth through the Bible. This simply befuddles me and I hope the answer is more complex than just that the Bible is the Word of God therefore it is Absolute Truth. Methinks that may be a wee bit circular. I would be interested in what you had to say on this topic. I think it's still on topic as both Perfection and Absolute Truth could be considered properties of God and part of TAG, right?

Oh one more point now that I wrote that last sentence. What I postulate is that Perfection, Absolute Truth, and God are nothing more than concepts in our own brains. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and seek them out or that they are meaningless just because they are constructs of our imagination. Plato thoroughly understood the importance for mankind to strive for the Perfection that existed only on the Plane of Ideals. What it does mean is that each individual is going to end up putting meaning to those three concepts in their own way.

Reality as each individual understands it consists of two distinct parts that are blended seamlessly in each of our brains: The physical objective reality and the internal subjective reality. Separating the two is nearly impossible, but since we all live together in the same physical reality we do our best to try and separate them. Science does the best job by not accepting any one person's view of reality or even a majority of people's view of reality. Science depends on a specific methodology and physical evidence. Anything else not in the physical realm is always without exception subjective.

TheFiveSolas

March 25th 2003, 12:34 AM

Ten,
Thanks for the response. I'll be addressing your points Tuesday night. :brow:

Woman

March 25th 2003, 01:06 AM

Ten Dimensions lays out what is a cogent and well written piece. I will copy it completely and append a thumbs up or other equally inane reply now and then just to keep it bumped up.

Ten D-says:
In the meantime, I'd like to go forward with proposing an alternate world view that handles "human freedom of thought/action, objective ethics, immutable immaterial laws of logic, and an objective epistemological foundation for KNOWING anything".

Of course, much smarter philosophers have no doubt tackled these issues before and much more eloquently, but I'm having fun so what the heck!

1) Human freedom of thought/action: Pretty much illusory. I've posted this in more depth elsewhere, but I'm too lazy to find it now. In summary, the physical processes that govern our brain can be compared to (in level of complexity) with the weather. Every single event that happens to you combined with your genetic code for wiring your brain in your unique way equals your thoughts and actions. Everything your brain does is a result of that amazingly complex data processing machine chewing on data and making decisions based on that data. Very little of what we do can not be found in animals at some more primitive level.

The bottom line on "free will" is that it is illusory and in fact, there is more evidence against free will than for it. To start with people are not constantly "thinking" using their higher brain functions for every single thing we do or we'd all move at the pace of snails! On top of that anyone who gets to know you well can usually predict your actions in set situations with a pretty good degree of accuracy. And finally, there are entire schools of science such as psychology and sociology that basically expose us for the machines we are.

This of course, takes no responsibility away from us - "I'm just a machine" can not be used as a defense because while you are a machine, you are a machine that is capable of processing data and so therefore you are responsible for collecting data before acting. Ignorance is never an adequate defense and if you know what you're doing is wrong then you have the data and should not be doing it. And of course, if you don't know the difference between right and wrong then you get to use the insanity defense and the law says you aren't responsible for your actions!

But then, it's also not that black and white either, is it? Should the abused child that is acting out in his teens be punished or given help and support?

2) Objective ethics: Ethics being a construct of the human brain are simply relative to the brains contemplating the ethics. Any "universal" ethics are merely universal because without them coming together in any constructive social order would be impossible (e.g. indiscriminate killing). But I'll defer to Plato on this one - he was realizing the mutability of "Truth" quite some time ago.

3) Immutable immaterial laws of logic: This is interesting I admit. I suppose by this you also mean math. I'm not sure saying that logic exists without a brain to observe it is accurate. Logic/math is not some etheral concept that our brains have slowly stumbled upon. It's more like our brains have slowly constructed the rules of logic and math based on simple basic starting principles. Essentially it was the start of science and science is the means by which we attempt to arrive at the physical truth of reality as best as possible. Logic/math/science are tools that mankind slowly has developed over the years and that tool has only reached maturity in the recent past couple of centuries. Does math/logic exist without a conscious being to use it? Is a hammer still a hammer if no conscious being exists to use it - let alone to be there to know what it is?

I'm pretty sure math and logic are not some etheral concept - they are tools that we've painstakingly been putting together over the centuries. If we cease to exist then all of our tools become meaningless, including the "immutable laws of logic".

4) Objective epistemological foundation for KNOWING anything: Again I think the Greek philosophers beat us to this one too. I'm pretty sure the field of studying the nature of knowledge is an entire field of philosophy, right? What's the name? I think it's epistemology (okay, I admit I'm being a smart ass there, but I couldn't help it since you used the word ). And last I checked I don't think all those philosophers studying it were in agreement that we can know anything for sure. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's one of the central ideas to the scientific methodology. Science never states anything with absolute certainty!

Science only makes statements that agree with the evidence of the day because that's really all we can ever know. Tomorrow with new evidence science will make new statements and then we'll know something else. But "knowing" is a fleeting concept - you only know something for as long as the data and evidence supports it. Come to think of it, wasn't it the Greek philosopher Socrates who went around doing nothing but asking questions of "wise men" showing them how little they actually "knew"?

All religious belief starts with one simple fact: a leap of faith. When people start believing their religious belief is right and someone else's religious faith is wrong disagreement starts. Then conflict. And then eventually, maybe not right away, but eventually, war erupts, people die, inquisitions start, and in general a lot of horrendous fighting escalates because two groups of people both think they are right in their unprovable leaps of faith. It's a dangerous position to take and the truly wise people are the agnostics.

I've found that certain religious people believe in not only the potential for Perfection in man after death, but they also believe in the concept of Absolute Truth. Both these concepts are fine and, in fact, again Plato spent much time talking about the "Plane of Ideals".

What I've been struggling with is how while the religious person will freely admit to not being able to achieve Perfection while alive they feel they are capable of knowing the Absolute Truth through the Bible. This simply befuddles me and I hope the answer is more complex than just that the Bible is the Word of God therefore it is Absolute Truth. Methinks that may be a wee bit circular. I would be interested in what you had to say on this topic. I think it's still on topic as both Perfection and Absolute Truth could be considered properties of God and part of TAG, right?

Oh one more point now that I wrote that last sentence. What I postulate is that Perfection, Absolute Truth, and God are nothing more than concepts in our own brains. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and seek them out or that they are meaningless just because they are constructs of our imagination. Plato thoroughly understood the importance for mankind to strive for the Perfection that existed only on the Plane of Ideals. What it does mean is that each individual is going to end up putting meaning to those three concepts in their own way.

Reality as each individual understands it consists of two distinct parts that are blended seamlessly in each of our brains: The physical objective reality and the internal subjective reality. Separating the two is nearly impossible, but since we all live together in the same physical reality we do our best to try and separate them. Science does the best job by not accepting any one person's view of reality or even a majority of people's view of reality. Science depends on a specific methodology and physical evidence. Anything else not in the physical realm is always without exception subjective.

Socrates

March 25th 2003, 01:51 AM

Woman:
Ten Dimensions lays out what is a cogent and well written piece. I will copy it completely and append a thumbs up or other equally inane reply now and then just to keep it bumped up.Was that a free decision? According to 10D, no. :bonk:

TheFiveSolas

March 25th 2003, 11:54 PM

Hey Ten!
Your post helps me prove the point that when the Christian worldview is denied, one ends up with a worldview that can only lead to absurdity.

You wrote:

I'd like to go forward with proposing an alternate world view that handles "human freedom of thought/action, objective ethics, immutable immaterial laws of logic, and an objective epistemological foundation for KNOWING anything".

What will be shown is that your post admits that your "alternative" cannot rationally account for any of the things I listed. Rather than "handling" them, it demonstrably precludes them.

For instance, with regards to free will/choice you wrote:

Human freedom of thought/action: Pretty much illusory...The bottom line on "free will" is that it is illusory and in fact, there is more evidence against free will than for it...And finally, there are entire schools of science such as psychology and sociology that basically expose us for the machines we are."

So, by your own admission, your worldview rules out freedom of will, thought, or action.

To quote you again:

Every single event that happens to you combined with your genetic code for wiring your brain in your unique way equals your thoughts and actions.

In other words, you can't help thinking this way, which means you COULD NOT have arrived your position by means of careful sifting of evidence and then FREELY choosing THIS position OVER another.

Also, if what you asserted is true, then rationality and logic are also precluded. The reason is simple, the concept of rationality presupposes that we have the ability to freely choose HOW we think (i.e., choosing to think one way as opposed to another).

In addition, any appeals to logic presuppose that we have the ability to CHOOSE valid over invalid inferences, something that your worldview denies.

I also need to point out an inconsistency in your view.

You wrote:

Everything your brain does is a result of that amazingly complex data processing machine chewing on data and making decisions based on that data.

First off, your worldview, by its own admission, rules out decisions of any kind. If "free will is illusory" as you maintain, then it necessarily follows that choice is also "illusory". Atoms do NOT choose, they merely react according to their inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc.

Secondly, your worldview cannot rationally account for "data" or "information". Data and information are NOT material, even though they may be carried by (or impressed into) matter.

An example should help clarify what I mean. When we speak audibly, air vibrations are formed which CARRY information. However, the "data" or "information" that is carried along by the soundwaves cannot be reduced to the matter that carries it. In other words, NO AMOUNT of scientific investigation into the physical properties of the air molecules (their speed, quantity, frequency of vibration, etc.) will bring us in touch with the information that they are conveying. Rather, the information/data that is being carried by the molecules is ALTOGETHER (and categorically) different from the molecules themselves.

When you appeal to things such as information, data, logic, reason, or decisions, which clearly do NOT comport with your "alternative" worldview, I will merely point out that your are abandoning YOUR worldview and temporarily borrowing from ours. This is further evidence that you KNOW in your heart of hearts that YOUR "alternative" isn't true, and that ours is.

I'll post more (about your other points) in a little bit...(hopefully Wednesday night) :thumb:

AtheistArchon

March 26th 2003, 02:46 PM

Secondly, your worldview cannot rationally account for "data" or "information". Data and information are NOT material, even though they may be carried by (or impressed into) matter.

An example should help clarify what I mean. When we speak audibly, air vibrations are formed which CARRY information. However, the "data" or "information" that is carried along by the soundwaves cannot be reduced to the matter that carries it. In other words, NO AMOUNT of scientific investigation into the physical properties of the air molecules (their speed, quantity, frequency of vibration, etc.) will bring us in touch with the information that they are conveying. Rather, the information/data that is being carried by the molecules is ALTOGETHER (and categorically) different from the molecules themselves.

- Leaving the free will issue aside for a moment, I'm not sure this is true. For example, materialistic science does not have to look at simply one molecule, then another. No, it can embrace the whole effect. Additionally, "information" is a term which is kind of ambiguous. Is there information in the reflection of sunlight off of the trunk of a tree? Yes, but it takes a human being to interpret it. Thus, anything and everything we experience is potentially "information". So, we've reduced this to the split between mind and body, kind of. Information exists in our minds.

- The next question is of course "so aren't our minds immaterial?" and I think the answer to that is no, they are material. However, this is a very lengthy discussion right here. Let me know if you'd like to get into it.

When you appeal to things such as information, data, logic, reason, or decisions, which clearly do NOT comport with your "alternative" worldview, I will merely point out that your are abandoning YOUR worldview and temporarily borrowing from ours. This is further evidence that you KNOW in your heart of hearts that YOUR "alternative" isn't true, and that ours is.

- Ehh, not really. This is a logical fallacy, but besides that, it's quite possible I think for our materialism to be correct and still have things like information, logic, and reason. A mind, in other words.

- And hearts don't think, by the way. :wink:

TheFiveSolas

March 27th 2003, 12:47 AM

Ten,
Ok, here's some more of my critique/rebuttal to your post.

You wrote:

2) Objective ethics: Ethics being a construct of the human brain are simply relative to the brains contemplating the ethics.

This assertion seems to imply that there exist no objective ethical norms, but only subjective preferences dictated by one's neural configuration (coupled with environmental factors).

Yet, two sentences earlier you wrote:

And of course, if you don't know the difference between right and wrong then you get to use the insanity defense...

These two statements don't comport with each other and are in fact contradictory. Its akin to saying:
1) There are no ethical norms of right and wrong that exist outside of the individual. Rather, what a person considers to be right and wrong is determined for them by their brain wiring and environment.
2) There exist standards of right and wrong that transcend the individual.

On top of that you have your denial of human freedom of will/choice. Therefore, a person's view of right and wrong, in your worldview, cannot be helped or changed. They simply are what they are, and since no two person's neural configuration AND environment are identical it follows that "ethics" cannot be spoken of as anything more than subjective preferences (fixed ones at that).

In addition, since it is your assertion that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are the result of one's own neural network it would be very strange to find someone that didn't know their OWN view of these differences (note: I'm referring to your statement about those that don't know the difference between right and wrong). In other words, how could such a person not know, if right and wrong are nothing more than THEIR OWN personal preferences.

You added:

Any "universal" ethics are merely universal because without them coming together in any constructive social order would be impossible (e.g. indiscriminate killing).

But, you've already denied that people freely choose how to think or act. Therefore, no one chooses to "construct" a "social order". If there is social order it would turn out to be purely accidental, not chosen/planned (i.e., some weather formations are calm, others are chaotic, but neither makes a choice to behave one way as opposed to the other).

Lastly (for now), appealing to "social order" as being a "good" goal begs the very question at hand as to what constitutes "good" versus "evil". And, as I've pointed out, we can't choose to change it one way or another, according to your view of reality.

TenDimensions

March 27th 2003, 02:22 AM

Yesterday @ 10:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45106#post45106)

TheFiveSolas:
Hey Ten!
Your post helps me prove the point that when the Christian worldview is denied, one ends up with a worldview that can only lead to absurdity.

Well, your first post admittedly only seemed to cover one aspect of this extremely complicated issue. While I was typing up this response your second post came through. It's already late and as you will see in this post I have expended an enormous amount of brain power "reacting" to your first post so I can't get to your second one tonight.

I could have misread your first post, after all, I am reading it and interpreting through my subjective brain, but I reread it a few times and I have to say it seemed like you were trying to boil your point down to: "See? The very fact that you are capable of choosing a worldview proves my point that we have free will!" I could be wrong about what you were saying so I won't debate that further. But I will get into some specifics you wrote.

For instance, with regards to free will/choice you wrote:

Human freedom of thought/action: Pretty much illusory...The bottom line on "free will" is that it is illusory and in fact, there is more evidence against free will than for it...And finally, there are entire schools of science such as psychology and sociology that basically expose us for the machines we are."

So, by your own admission, your worldview rules out freedom of will, thought, or action.

Where does it say that I ruled out thought or action? I think it's necessary that I further define "free will" as the way I'm using the term.

All animals (including people) are capable of making decisions based on the available data - both present and past (also known as experience). These "decisions" could just as easily be called "reactions based on the data". In humans our brains are advanced enough that we have very complex reactions based on numerous abstract data points, but the reaction process is the same between people and animals.

Furthermore, since you are your brain, in describing that process it would be natural to call it a "choice". To not call it a "choice" would be like describing the mental picture of a beach in terms of the neurons firing in your head. That mental picture doesn't exist as some internal projection inside your head even though to you it seems like it is, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't describe it as if you were actually seeing it because that's what the brain is supposed to be doing. And so it is the same with "choices" - the process of making "choices" is to react to a given situation in such a way as to be consistent with your past experiences, but you don't describe it like that - you call it "making a decision".

Free will (as I understand it from your point of view) is something that is a unique trait to humans insofar as it allows humans to not react in "animalistic" manners, but to reflect on the concept of "morals" and "values" and make free will choices that seemingly fly in the face of what an "animal" might do. [This might not be exactly how you'd describe it, but at least I'm trying to restate your position in an honest attempt to understand it clearly.]

I hold that the concept of "free will" is not something supernatural or transcending of the human brain because there is no place in the brain for this thing to exist. The brain is you and I do not see the brain as a tool used by the "you" that would be described by some as the soul.

It is a powerful and self-empowering idea that the brain is a very complex and amazing data processing device. When the brain is armed with this data it becomes possible for the brain to react (choose) to this data (idea) by trying to make more informed reactions (decisions) in the future by gathering as much data as possible. Only a fool tries to react (decide on) a situation with as little data as possible.

People can make decisions and so can animals, but these decisions can only be based on the data input that has been collected over the lifespan of the brain making the decision. Furthermore, the outcome of the decision is completely and utterly based on the current situation plus the experience (past data) of the brain. To make matters even more complicated the brain has been shown to rewire itself during the data processing events! This further effects the outcomes of future decisions (reactions if you prefer) by this amazing data processing device. But a data processing device is all it is and reacting is all it is doing.

You then went on to say:
In other words, you can't help thinking this way, which means you COULD NOT have arrived [at] your position by means of careful sifting of evidence and then FREELY choosing THIS position OVER another.

I can't tell you how many times I re-read that sentence over and over and over again. Five Solas, I can honestly say you are the only person on this board who has made me think as hard as I did over that one sentence. What troubled me so much was how you overly simplified the situation and in one sentence made it seem like a lack of free will turns me into an automaton. And you did it in a very convincing way.

Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with that sentence, but I do not have to agree with how you wrote that sentence. In my attempt to turn that sentence back on you I'm going to ask a question that I hope you will contemplate as long as I have honestly sat and contemplated that sentence:

Can you honestly admit to yourself that you COULD choose an atheist worldview in the face of ANY AMOUNT of possible conceivable evidence now that your brain is wired the way it is?

We are only capable of reaction and those reactions are shaped by our past experiences. Take the abused wife and her abuser. Can either of them consciously decide to improve the relationship if they don't have the data (the self-empowerment) to actually make the change? Of course not - that's one of the reasons why there are so many spousal abuse movies on the Lifetime channel. The data, "things can be better and here is the way", has to be given to the brains involved in those situations before they can improve at all.

And in the case of the abusive husband - how many studies have there been to show that these men usually have grown up in similar home environments? If that's not a case of learned behavior (and a lack of free will) I don't know what is. But remember, a lack of a spiritual free will does not absolve us of our responsibilities as human beings. Most of us are all given the data as children that we can make choices - we do not have to behave as animals! But the ability to make a "choice" (as I defined it above) based on supplied data is not the same as a spiritual free will.

Also, if what you asserted is true, then rationality and logic are also precluded. The reason is simple, the concept of rationality presupposes that we have the ability to freely choose HOW we think (i.e., choosing to think one way as opposed to another).

I disagree with your definition of rationality. The only thing rationality presupposes is that the brain's data processing function works properly when given data. It makes no guarantees that the outcomes will be rational - it merely guarantees that the brain will make a decision that appears rational to itself based on the data. Want evidence? Find me someone who makes a decision they feel is not supported by the data they have and that person will be acting irrationally. In fact, that's fantastic proof that the "choice" made is always whatever the brain spits out as the best possible reaction given whatever data is being used. When described like that I'd have to say there aren't different ways of thinking - the brain always selects the choice that seems to make the most sense based on the data the brain is chewing on - a purely physical, programmed (by way of past experiences) process. To do otherwise is the definition of irrational.

In addition, any appeals to logic presuppose that we have the ability to CHOOSE valid over invalid inferences, something that your worldview denies.

I never made any appeals to logic, did I? I said that logic is a tool that people have developed in order to help each other arrive at the same conclusions by shaping the data and feeding it into our brains the same way. I do not think logic exists without a machine to process it.

I also need to point out an inconsistency in your view.
You wrote:
Everything your brain does is a result of that amazingly complex data processing machine chewing on data and making decisions based on that data.
First off, your worldview, by its own admission, rules out decisions of any kind. If "free will is illusory" as you maintain, then it necessarily follows that choice is also "illusory". Atoms do NOT choose, they merely react according to their inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc.

This is definitely complicated, I admit. I see your point about me not being able to use the word "choose" and I think I defined it more clearly early in this post. But let's try another way of looking at the concept of "choice".

In my worldview, the primitive nervous system developed as a need to react to the environment as a way to increase survivability. When you touch an earthworm and it recoils I don't think either of us would claim that's by "choice". In your worldview, humans clearly have the ability to make a choice. So, since you're so keen on throwing around challenges - according to your worldview exactly where do the creatures that can't make a choice (earthworms) stop and creatures that can make a choice (cats, horses, apes, humans) begin? Keep in mind I can provide you increasing examples of complexity in nervous systems all the way from earthworms to humans.

In my worldview it's all the same process just a whole lot more complex. Because the brain is so much more complex the "reactions" it produces in the body are based on vast amounts of past data (experience). If I call it a "choice" it's only because I have my own biases about people "making choices". Since you are your brain when I say "you make a choice" that is essentially "the brain reacting to a situation based on its wiring which in turn is based on past experiences which in turn were shaped by past reactions and the results of those reactions". But I find it's easier to say "you make a choice". :smile:

Secondly, your worldview cannot rationally account for "data" or "information". Data and information are NOT material, even though they may be carried by (or impressed into) matter.

An example should help clarify what I mean. When we speak audibly, air vibrations are formed which CARRY information. However, the "data" or "information" that is carried along by the soundwaves cannot be reduced to the matter that carries it. In other words, NO AMOUNT of scientific investigation into the physical properties of the air molecules (their speed, quantity, frequency of vibration, etc.) will bring us in touch with the information that they are conveying. Rather, the information/data that is being carried by the molecules is ALTOGETHER (and categorically) different from the molecules themselves.

If I understood you correctly then I'm not understanding what the big deal is about information or data not being material in the sense of being "physical". The manifestation of the image you produce in your mind can look real, but it doesn't exist physically beyond the firing of neurons in your head. And so just as imaginary images are meaningless without a brain so are those vibrations meaningless unless a hard wired brain device at the end of an ear can pick those vibrations up and translate them into something that can be understood by the brain. Does this mean we now have to go into a long conversation on what it means for the brain to "understand"?

The information is meaningless in the air without two brains on both ends. Not only that, but it has to be two brains speaking the same language. A great example of the machine your brain is: When hearing someone speak another language that you truly don't understand one word of have you ever noticed you don't hear pauses in-between the words? Guess what, when we speak we don't pause between our words either. You "hear" pauses because the brain is interpreting the different words even though the vibrations in the air that you're talking about don't stop between the words being transmitted. I can't think of a better example showing how the brain imparts the meaning on meaningless air vibrations.

When you appeal to things such as information, data, logic, reason, or decisions, which clearly do NOT comport with your "alternative" worldview, I will merely point out that your are abandoning YOUR worldview and temporarily borrowing from ours.

Let's go through that list:
Information and data - those are just "stimulants" for our senses. Completely devoid of any meaning without a brain to process them with.
Logic and reason - tools that our brains slowly built through successive reactions to their environment, the net result being better means of communicating thereby increasing survivability.
Decisions - While I have no problem with using the common phrase "choice" when discussing how the brain operates as a machine you've obviously shown that you don't want me to use that word at all. So fine, it's a little more typing, but the resulting message is the same - the brain doesn't make decisions, it is constantly reacting to its environment and reshaping itself through the experiences of those reactions in an effort to increase survivability by making better reactions through that re-wiring process. I find it easier to call that making decisions based on learning, though. :smile:

This is further evidence that you KNOW in your heart of hearts that YOUR "alternative" isn't true, and that ours is.

I'm not even going to dignify that statement with a response.

voidhawk

March 27th 2003, 06:32 AM

Hi five solas
Sorry for the delay in replying. I have been off line for a few days.

I agree that language is objective in the sense that to be able to communicate between humans we have to have a shared a definition of words and a shared grammar but these are the results of negotiation both formal and informal between individuals and groups.

With Scripture we can no longer negotiate with the writers, and the ultimate author does not seem to want to give any further clarification.

Context is not always useful in determining the meaning of words. For example in Hamlet, weird I keep coming back to Shakespeare he is not my favourite writer but he is at least a cultural icon in common, Hamlet says to Ophelia
“Get thee to a nunnery”
Now on first reading the piece people assume he is telling her to enter a convent, but nunnery was slang for a brothel. Which meaning did Shakespeare intended the audience to receive? We can not know now; the author is dead. A mere four hundred odd years separate us from Shakespeare and we have some cultural continuity but we can not unambiguously decode this passage. Three thousand odd years separate us from the composers of the Old Testament how can we be sure of any interpretation of those ancient words that deal with the psychological parts of our lives, faith, hope, love, guilt and the others.

I think post modernism is hopelessly flawed the Sokal science wars showed it for the vacuous nonsense it is. A more reasonable interpretation of language IMHO is that it is not deceptive or false but a useful if imperfect tool.

I don’t believe language is completely the product of an individual but the result of many individuals functioning in a culture. I don’t think words can have meanings that are inherent to them (well not since Babel maybe LOL) that we would know instinctively without first being taught by another human.

We you and I are able to have an intelligible conversation because we have a language and a lot of cultural reference points in common. So when an ambiguity occurs we can question each other and ask for clarification. For example in an earlier post I describe Scripture as incoherent. When I wrote that I was thinking of light, white light which is incoherent, a mixture of wavelengths and phases, as opposed to coherent laser light which consists of light of one wavelength and all photons in the same phase, but it occurred to me some might read my post and think I meant incoherent as in drunk and incoherent a pejorative and derogatory meaning I did not intend which is why I sought to clarify my meaning.

The problem is that the original words are lost in case of the Old Testament; we do not have access to the original oral traditions and in the New Testament for some books, I am reading the original Aramaic translated into Greek translated into English, so whose words am I reading?

For example I have an idea of faith based on my reading the English text but J P Holding expounds a different interpretation on the tektonics web site. Which is the true meaning?

To quote Rev van Till at this point

According to any consistently Christian position, God and God only, has ultimate definitory power. God’s description or plan of the fact makes the fact what it is.

Rev van Till, Common Grace.

Under lining is mine.

My question is why if God is the ultimate definitory power why didn’t he make himself a bit clearer if the ambiguity was not important to him.

Although you quote verses to rebut the Universalist and Annihilationist claims; I have to state I don’t know Scripture well enough to know whether you have succeed, but I suspect that the Universalists and the Annihilationist know enough to justify their claims and demonstrate it is your beliefs that are in error

With regard to the Chicago Statement I note that with great subtleness it does not state which parts of the Bible fit into which category history, poetry hyperbole and metaphor. Which leaves a great deal of freedom for each denomination to interpret scripture in the way it finds most appealing. Which is I know, what a lot of Universalists say about the passages that deal with the punishment of the unbeliever they are hyperbole and metaphor.

I’m not arguing about the inerrancy of the Bible per se on this thread, I’m concentrating on my perception that Presuppositionalism is a flawed system of apologetics because it presupposes a coherent Christian world view, but when you look at the community of people who claim they are saved and that Scripture is their inspiration you realise that this cannot be, unless you want to redefine Christian as only the followers of the Rev. van Till.

While Jeffrey Jay Lowder on internet infidels is entitled to his opinion that

Even if no one reads the Bible infallibly, people might still be able to read the Bible with a high degree of accuracy.

the American Atheists seem to disagree.

There may well be an unambiguous message latent in the Bible but how would it be justified?

I agree that the major Christian branches do on the surface accept a lot of theology in common, but if you follow the Rev van Tills advice and examine beneath the surface although they may use the same words the details vary. Here is a list of beliefs.

[i]fivesolas wrote[i]
1) God exists
2) He is personal
3) He is both immanent and transcendent
4) He alone is uncreated and eternal, all other things are created and contingent (i.e., all things other than Himself are dependent upon Him for their existence).
5) God created all things for a purpose
6) He is triune
7) He is rational
8) He is morally and intrinsically good, holy, righteous, merciful, just, etc.
9) He created man in His image and man is accountable to Him for his actions.
10) God has chosen to reveal truth about Himself, the world, and ourselves, in nature, Scripture, and ultimately in Christ.
11) God has revealed that man (and the entire creation) was originally created good, but rebellion spoiled this original state.
12) God has revealed that He has chosen, out of His love and mercy, to redeem mankind (and the created order) from this fallen state.

For example the Rt. Rev David Jenkins Bishop of Durham in the Church of England until he retired denied the historicity of the resurrection, the reality of Jesus’ return and the reality of divine punishment, and still claimed he was a devout Christian. He would have had different interpretations to you on most of the items on your list.

Some Protestant denominations assert the primacy of Scripture where as the Roman Catholic Church in Vatican II said

Hence both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal feelings of devotion and reverence” Vol 1 page 755

Also from www.barna.org/

31% of born again Christians think that if a person is good enough they will go to heaven.

About 47% think that Satan is not a real being but a symbol of evil.

24% stated that when Jesus lived on earth he sinned like the rest of the people.

26% held to the opinion that it does not matter what faith one observes because they all teach the same.

So there is a wide variety of interpretations behind the appearance of common belief.

I accept that TAG deals with broad generalities and not minute details, the problem as I perceive it lies in the presuppositions that underlie TAG the most fundamental one in my opinion is the lack of a single coherent conceptual schema in Scripture.

Finally, I get to my last point; OK you’ve asked how I see an atheist world view that doesn’t borrow from Christianity working. Well, you have given me a good long run at TAG and Presuppositionalism. I know you won’t agree but I think I got a few points in, so out of fairness I should let you have a tilt at my autonomous world view. I’ll post an outline of my position soon.
:thumb:

TenDimensions

March 29th 2003, 01:33 PM

I thought I'd respond to your second post.

03-26-2003 @ 11:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45876#post45876)
TheFiveSolas:
These two statements don't comport with each other and are in fact contradictory. Its akin to saying:
1) There are no ethical norms of right and wrong that exist outside of the individual. Rather, what a person considers to be right and wrong is determined for them by their brain wiring and environment.
2) There exist standards of right and wrong that transcend the individual.

But this is in fact exactly what society does. There are certain "private" morals such as premarital sex of which the government makes no laws. However, there are other issues of morality such as the proper age of consent that the government does make laws regarding. These things, though, are still completely subjective when you examine them carefully.

I would say the only different is that the majority of people agree enough in principle in order to allow the government to make a law. But then when not enough people agree strong controversy can occur - like in the case of abortion. But morality is subjective, absolutely, but that does not prevent a social group from arbitrarily putting together a set of laws so that we can all get along.

And finally, just so that we're clear, I'll restate that the only "universal" morality I can see would be the kinds of things that would prevent people from forming societies in the first place, such as indiscriminate killing.

Really, Five Solas, the concept of moral relativism is something that more and more people are willing to accept as we develop a better appreciation for other cultures and mind sets.

On top of that you have your denial of human freedom of will/choice. Therefore, a person's view of right and wrong, in your worldview, cannot be helped or changed. They simply are what they are, and since no two person's neural configuration AND environment are identical it follows that "ethics" cannot be spoken of as anything more than subjective preferences (fixed ones at that).

Ding! Ding! Ding! Of course, you're making it sound like no two people can agree on any moral issue when that's obviously not the case. My worldview does not prevent two or more people from agreeing on morality - it just prevents one group of people from being able to dictate a divine universal morality code to the masses. Preventing that from happening is something I feel is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the freedoms we all enjoy now.

And the lack of spiritual free will does not mean the morality at the individual level is "fixed" - I don't know what gave you that idea. The brain is capable of processing data whenever new data is supplied, so there is no reason to think someone might change their opinion with new experiences - in fact, it happens all the time. But that's still a long way from spiritual free will.

In addition, since it is your assertion that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are the result of one's own neural network it would be very strange to find someone that didn't know their OWN view of these differences (note: I'm referring to your statement about those that don't know the difference between right and wrong). In other words, how could such a person not know, if right and wrong are nothing more than THEIR OWN personal preferences.

That's an interesting question. Having never interviewed someone who would be legally deemed insane by the United States court system, I'm not sure if that person would abide by their own twisted sense of morality (and by that I mean deviant enough from the majority of those living in the society). What I do know is that the court system defines insanity as not being able to tell between right and wrong - as far as the majority in the society defines it as. I'm not denying the existence of a created moral code for the masses to follow - I'm deying the existence of a moral code that is not a human construct. The fact that you suggest otherwise strongly implies to me that you're not even attempting to understand what I'm writing.

"It is the sign of a true wise man to be able to entertain another's thoughts without having to accept them." --Socrates (the original)

But, you've already denied that people freely choose how to think or act. Therefore, no one chooses to "construct" a "social order". If there is social order it would turn out to be purely accidental, not chosen/planned (i.e., some weather formations are calm, others are chaotic, but neither makes a choice to behave one way as opposed to the other).

The natural laws of evolution dictate that a social order is required in order for humans to survive. This isn't some spiritual natural law, this is akin to gravity. As the creatures that would later become "humans" continued to evolve the ones that were most successful were the ones that identified with each other as a "group", cooperated immensely with one another, and maintained a strict (and primal) "us vs. them" mentality in order to ensure the groupsl survival. These traits are simply wired into our brains and are evident in our actions on nearly a daily basis. No spiritual guidance or "choosing to create a social order" required. It was a blind natural selection force that shaped humans into the social creatures that we are today.

Lastly (for now), appealing to "social order" as being a "good" goal begs the very question at hand as to what constitutes "good" versus "evil". And, as I've pointed out, we can't choose to change it one way or another, according to your view of reality.

Again, you're absolutely correct. There are most certainly very "bad" things that come from social order - one of the worst is the "us vs. them" mentality that people have all the time for no good reason. It is this mentality that keeps larger groups of people from coming together. We are all made of star stuff, we are all human beings together on the same planet. The "us vs. them" wiring in the brain keeps us from recognizing that fact "in our heart of hearts" to borrow your phrase.

And since our brains are data processing reactive machines we can not begin to overcome the very natural forces that divide us until we recognize how and why our brains operate the way they do. With the introduction of this new data our brains can being to process it and react to it. I'm not sure we can ever totally overcome the deep seated instinctual wiring of the brains that cause us to put more value on our countrymen's lives than on foreigners' lives, but I sure am going to try my hardest to bring it to people's attention (i.e. provide their data processing machines with the data) in order to get them to reach different conclusions.

TheFiveSolas

March 29th 2003, 03:33 PM

AtheistArchon wrote (in response to my assertion that a strictly material view of the universe precludes freedom of any kind):

...materialistic science does not have to look at simply one molecule, then another. No, it can embrace the whole effect.

I agree. However, I fail to see how this rescues you from the dilemma strict materialism places you in. Taken as a whole or in parts you are still left with all processes/events being fully determined by the laws of chemistry and physics.

You continued:

Additionally, "information" is a term which is kind of ambiguous. Is there information in the reflection of sunlight off of the trunk of a tree? Yes, but it takes a human being to interpret it. Thus, anything and everything we experience is potentially "information".

I think you are equivocating on the term "information" when you assert that "information" is "in the reflection of sunlight off the trunk of a tree". I think what you meant is that we, as human beings capable of thought and reflection, are able to LEARN things from such phenomena (such as how light interacts with objects, etc.).

First, such a view presupposes that the universe is ordered and rational (i.e., able to be understood). The Christian worldview can rationally account for this presupposition. The non-Christian worldview cannot.

Second, it presupposes the reliability of our senses. Again, the Christian worldview alone can rationally account for this presupposition.

Third, it presupposes that our minds are rational in their interpretation and processing of our sensory data. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again, is it rational to affirm this if your worldview asserts that our minds and senses are the result of millions of years of accidents?

Now, I agree that defining what information IS, is a difficult task. However, I'll here offer some prelimary remarks.

1) Information is immaterial rather than material (though it can be carried by, or impressed into, matter). I gave an example of sound waves to support this. Air molecules can carry the information (of words for example) in the form of sound waves, however the air vibration is NOT the information that it carries.

2) Information is coded. Examples of which are the letters on this screen and the frequency of the sound waves created by our vocal cords.

3) Information is specific and not random. In simple terms, it carries a message.

4) Information is teleological. It carries a message for a purpose. For example, DNA is a coded message that is for the production of specific proteins.

(I'll post more after I get home from the office)

Butters

April 1st 2003, 05:33 PM

I hope you don't mind me joining this conversation so late, but I did want to throw in my two cents.
Posted by TFS #21,
Question 1
1) Are the laws of logic material or immaterial (non-physical)?

"Now, how might an atheist like Till respond to question 1? He might give one of two answers (I hope this is obvious).
A1) The laws of logic are material (having the properties of matter or energy).
IF this is his answer I would have to ask for proof such as the physical properties of a logical law (i.e., its inherent size, shape, electron charge, etc.) I hope the absurdity of such a response is obvious.
A2) The laws of logic are immaterial.
IF this is his answer I would have to ask how he can rationally account, in his atheistic system, for the REAL existence of non-physical entities. What possible rational account could he give for their existence?

Note: In my questioning I'm attempting to get at the UNPROVEN assumptions that undergird Till's argument. If he cannot give a rational account of (or for) them then his argument fails at step one.

A second question I might ask would be this:
2) Are the laws of logic universal or are they the conventions of men?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that your constructing an either or argument. The laws of logic or a material, however they are not a non physical entity. The laws of logic are merely a process constructed to investigate the nature of reality. They are only an abstract concept. The laws of logic or not any " thing ". They do not exist outside the mind of man.
I believe that this is a similar situation with mathematics. When I say1+1=2, does the number two have an existence? When not referring to a direct object, it does not. It is only an abstract concept existing in my mind. Does this mean that this concept cannot help me organize my view of reality? Certainly not obviously does. Can the laws of logic exist without God? Yes. Can they exist without men? No. Before mankind existed on this earth, time passed, events happened, and yet there were no laws of logic. The laws of logic are not reality, only a method that we use to sort out, and test our concept of reality. And what is that final test? Unfortunately it seems the only test that can be of any value ultimately, is our sensory input. To prove to me that 1+1=2, you have to relate this to my sensory input (one Apple and one Apple are 2 apples) And again unfortunately our senses can deceive us. The success of the human race hinges on our ability to compare and share our sensory input. Now you may say that we take many things on " faith ", but the faith that the atheist holds, is the realization that though we may never be able to prove some concepts, experience has shown that it is reasonable to make some assumptions and unreasonable to make others based on our collective experience. Christians like to point out that it takes faith for an atheist to believe that the sun will rise everyday. However, this is entirely misleading. We cannot prove the sun will not rise tomorrow. However, since we know the nature of our solar system, and we have the experience of everyone who came before us, the only reasonable assumption that we can make is that the sun will rise tomorrow. If we want to speculate that the sun will not rise tomorrow, we must show some reason for this.
logic is only a tool we use to test our assumptions of reality. However, the final judge of our logic is our sensory input. Here's my favorite example of logic.
All birds lay eggs
all Robins are birds
therefore all Robins lay eggs
Now, how do we test this? Is it true that all Robins lay eggs? The only standard we have to test this logic is our sensory input. If we observe a large group of Robins we will see that only female Robins lay eggs. So what happened to our logic? The mistake was made because we had not originally narrowly defined all our terms. By checking our logical construct against our sensory input, the mistake was found. You can rationally account for the laws of logic when you realize that they are only attempts to analyze reality.
I liken this to a quote by Thomas Paine,
" it may be said that man can make or draw a triangle, and therefore a triangle is a human invention. But the triangle, one drawn is no other than the image of the principal; it is a delineation to the eye, and from thence to the mind, of a principal that would otherwise be imperceptible. The triangle does not make the principal, any more than a candle taken into a room that was dark makes the chairs and tables that before were invisible. "
This I believe answers your second question or the laws of logic universal or are they conventions of Man. They are both. A naturalistic world operates in a logical manner, however man is not in possession of every fact that guides every principle. By creating a guideline to organize our thoughts, we made explore reality and reduce our chance of error.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post No. 26 by TFS,
So, let me try to restate the criticism in order to be sure I understand it correctly.

His argument is as follows.
The transcendental argument claims that only the Christian God can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility (meaningfulness) of anything, the necessary metaphysical foundation for reality, and the necessary epistemological foundation for knowledge. But, what if another God exists that can provide all of the above? Wouldn't that disprove the Christian God?

The obvious answer is yes. But what has this argument proven? As far as I can tell, not a thing. Let me put it this way. Are we being rational if we use arbitrary speculation and prejudicial conjecture? On what rational grounds does this atheist assert that another God exists (or possibly exists)? Based upon what evidence? What we are seeing here is an assertion, by an atheist, that is based completely on blind faith!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you're putting the horse before the cart. No one has made an assertion of of proof. This is only an open ended question. If another God exist that can provide all the above then yes that would disapprove the Christian God. Of course I contend that Christians use arbitrary speculation (the Bible is true because it says it is) and prejudicial conjecture (I believe the Bible is true therefore the Bible must be true). Of course because of your prejudicial conjecture you have discounted the possibility of the existence of a God that better meets the above requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TFS,
Furthermore, the argument posits a "God" that has "not chosen to reveal anything about itself to us." It should be obvious that you cannot RATIONALLY argue for the existence (or even possibility) of something that has absolutely NO EVIDENCE for its existence! On the other hand, within the Christian worldview, it is at least RATIONAL to make the claims we do since we have the belief that God has chosen to reveal Himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree with the first statement, for your second statement to be true you must first show that your belief that the Bible is indeed the revealed word of God is rational. I contend that it is not.
We should also not discount the possibility that God has chosen to reveal himself in some other way. Referring again to Thomas Paine, his assertion is that God has revealed himself in the creation of the universe. His claim is that God has left us enough information in the material universe to deduce his existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TFS, post #34,

However, the actual argument was one dealing with the atheist's (or non-Christian's) rational grounds for believing that physical events act in predictable cause-effect relationships. This refers to the principle of induction. Namely, the belief that the way things have happened in the past will continue to do so in the future (and will do so BECAUSE matter/energy have inherent physical properties that cause them to act/react in fixed ways according to physical laws such as the laws of Chemistry and Physics).

The principle of induction is what undergirds ALL science. Induction needs to be true in order for science to work. In other words, scientific inquiry ASSUMES that ALL events can be studied and traced back to a cause.

Now, what the proponent of TAG will ask the atheist is WHY they assume that the principle of induction holds true. Remember, we are looking for RATIONAL justification for holding this belief. How can the atheist (or non-Christian) rationally account for his belief that ALL matter/energy acts/reacts due to causal connections? The fact of the matter is that the atheist has NO epistemological grounds (dealing with HOW we know what we claim to know) for making such an assertion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe this may have been answered, but let me give you my version.
The principle of induction can rationally be assumed because it has shown to be true over Andover and over and over again. Of course you're semantics are misleading. Can I prove that ALL matter/energy acts/reacts due to causal connection? No. But every action and reaction ever observed are causal. (if you discount the subatomic uncertainty principle, as you do in your argument against free well in a materialistic universe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO atheist or human being (or even human beings as a whole) have SEEN any causal relationship between events. We ALL have merely seen sequences of events following other events. Neither have we studied ALL events. In a universe where our galaxy alone (one of billions I'm told) is so large that it would take over 100,000yrs for light to move from one side to the other (at the rate of 700,000,000 miles per hour) we can be sure we have only studied the very SMALLEST percentage of events.
you can argue Hume all you want. But by denying causal relationships between events you remove any foundation for making any sense of reality. If I knocked over a glass of water, and the water pours on to the ground, I can argue that that is a causal relationship. You may argue that these events are only sequential, you may actually provide a logical construct showing how I cannot prove that these actions are causal. However, my accumulated lifetime of experience, makes it more reasonable, and it more useful, to see that these events are causal, in attempt to understand the exact relationship between these events to provide an even more useful guide to understanding reality.
I find it amusing, that on the one hand that although science and reason provide us with a very workable, consistent, predictable, method of exploring, explaining, and living in this universe. The Christian would argue that since it cannot be proved, we should feel free to discard it. On the other hand, we should feel free to assume that an ancient Collection of authorless and dateless manuscripts somehow prove the existence of some being, that has never been experienced (or shown to be) outside of this text or the minds of those who accept it as true as a presupposition.
I would like to continue this, but I am pressed for time, more in the next post.

Butters

April 1st 2003, 06:05 PM

TFS, post #160,

AtheistArchon wrote (in response to my assertion that a strictly material view of the universe precludes freedom of any kind):
“ ...materialistic science does not have to look at simply one molecule, then another. No, it can embrace the whole effect. ”

I agree. However, I fail to see how this rescues you from the dilemma strict materialism places you in. Taken as a whole or in parts you are still left with all processes/events being fully determined by the laws of chemistry and physics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I fail to see how this is a problem. I do not think that your definition of free will is the problem but your definition of " I ". If "I" am the sum of my parts, then "I" have free will. yes, "I" am a collection of neurons, controlled by electrochemical reactions, which have been formed partially by my genetics and partially by my environment. What you are arguing is that" I" do not have the free will to do anything, or make any choice, then what " I " would make. I cannot help but be what I am. But this does not preclude the person " I' am from making choices based on " my " free well. Now that I am reading this may be his your definition of free well that is causing your problem. " I ", this collection of neurons, electrochemical reactions, and memories, are free to make my own choices. Of course if you're just arguing that we cannot escape who we are, then I must agree. If " I " m not happy with who I am, I can change who I am, but that decision is based on who I am. It seems to be a typical philosophical problem, interesting, but ultimately meaningless.
Now excuse me if I have passed over this, but I have yet to see how a Christian worldview would change any of this. I would like to see a concise explanation of this.
Thanks.

Butters

April 1st 2003, 06:38 PM

TFS, Post No. 160,
"First, such a view presupposes that the universe is ordered and rational (i.e., able to be understood). The Christian worldview can rationally account for this presupposition. The non-Christian worldview cannot."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to be fair, you should say the atheist worldview cannot. Your again assuming that no other religion can account for this. Since you do not have complete knowledge of every religion that has ever been practiced everywhere in the world at any time, you cannot prove that some other religion may explain the universe in a more reasonable, rational, logical, method.
Of course if we take the atheist point of view, we can account for this presupposition. We use our observation, in our efforts to uncover the truth of reality, by applying reason, we can uncover the truth behind the vast majority of phenomena. Take for example the Christian worldview that certain illnesses are caused by demons. If we use reason and the scientific method to examine this situation we find no illnesses that are caused by demons. So this leads us to the pre supposition that demons do not cause illness. Is this prove that demons can't cause illness? No. Is it proof that demons never cause illness? No. However, does it become, reasonable to presuppose, when confronted with an ill person, that they are suffering from a natural ailment? Yes. Now, when science identifies various causes for diseases, the actual workings of disease. Bacteria, viruses, genetic defect etc. etc. and cures of them while at the same time the Christian worldview cannot define a demon, cannot show you a demon, and can give you no evidence of a demon existing outside of the imagination of the Christian believer. What is more rational to presuppose? The demons very probably do not exist. If they do exist, they inhabit people so rarely that a have never been documented by anyone other than the Christian believer? Or would it be more reasonable to presuppose that disease is caused by natural causes? If you carry-on this line of argument, on and on, you can only come to the conclusion that it is reasonable and rational to presuppose a natural universe.
We must apply this method to everything around us. While it may not prove the nature of the universe, it is the only self correcting method we have.

Reading all through this thread, I see that you claim that the Christian worldview can rationally account for this presupposition. However, I have yet to see how you can prove the presupposition that the Christian worldview is true. I am afraid that assuming the Bible to be true because the Bible says it's true is not a reasonable and rational answer. Can you provide a reasonable and rational reason to believe the Bible is the true revealed word of God?
Thanks

TheFiveSolas

April 1st 2003, 10:11 PM

AtheistArchon,
I know, your thinking, man this guy must be a workaholic. He said he would post more of his rebuttal to me after he got home from the office. That was Saturday, today is Tuesday! :rofl:

Seriously though, I thought I'd have time to post when I got home but that just didn't materialize (pun intended). In addition, I came down with the flu and have been fighting it ever since. So, all I've posted are some short quips here and there in other threads.

So, back to what I was hoping to finish Saturday night.

Information, as I've hopefully proven, is not made of matter, but can be carried or "pressed" into matter. (This key insight, that information can be impressed into matter, comes from information theorist Dr. Werner Gitt).

For a good summary of the main information theories see the following article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

Now, if information is immaterial, teleological, and specific I need to ask HOW can the non-Christian account for it metaphysically AND epistemologically?

The Christian worldview can rationally account for a view of reality (metaphysic) in which both material AND immaterial entities exist. We also have a rational foundation for knowing (epistemology) this to be the nature of reality (since God has revealed it).

In summary, the atheist that affirms the existence only of material objects ends up precluding information. Since information is a necessary precondition for intelligiblity (making sense of the world and our experience of it) it necessarily follows that the atheistic worldview, if true, would reduce itself to absurdity since information COULD NOT exist.

NOTE: I apologize if my post comes across a little convoluted. I'm currently on two different types of medication and also, due to a persistent cough from being congested, haven't gotten much sleep the past couple of nights.

AtheistArchon

April 2nd 2003, 12:11 AM

I know, your thinking, man this guy must be a workaholic. He said he would post more of his rebuttal to me after he got home from the office. That was Saturday, today is Tuesday! :rofl:

Seriously though, I thought I'd have time to post when I got home but that just didn't materialize (pun intended). In addition, I came down with the flu and have been fighting it ever since. So, all I've posted are some short quips here and there in other threads.

- Please take care of yourself... that nasty bug from China is hovering around and I'd hate to see anyone get seriously ill! Myself, I've upped my weekly baths to bi-weekly.

Information, as I've hopefully proven, is not made of matter, but can be carried or "pressed" into matter. (This key insight, that information can be impressed into matter, comes from information theorist Dr. Werner Gitt).

For a good summary of the main information theories see the following article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

- I'll have to read that. Let me get back to you on it, but in the meantime (briefly), I'm under the impression that information (as difficult as it is to actually define) is directly relative to the mind chewing on it. For example, the light from a distant star is made of photons, and that's it. However, we can take note of them, study them, and call it "information"... but the information exists only in our minds. In other words, there is potential information in every single thing we observe and encounter, but it is the comprehension of what we're experiencing that allows us to gather information.

- I may change my mind, of course. :smile: Let me dig into that link.

In summary, the atheist that affirms the existence only of material objects ends up precluding information. Since information is a necessary precondition for intelligiblity (making sense of the world and our experience of it) it necessarily follows that the atheistic worldview, if true, would reduce itself to absurdity since information COULD NOT exist.

- Well, a minor nitpick... not all atheists are strict materialists. :wink: But I understand what you're saying. To be bluntly honest, I am only a materialist because I have never seen a good reason to believe in any immaterial things. I believe the brain provides us with a material means to a mind, and that our minds themselves are "immaterial" only in that our perceptions limit us from measuring the synapses and such. We didn't evolve to be asking these types of questions, I think, but rather to be hunters and gatherers, and so we struggle with it.

- I'll post again shortly. Rest assured that your post made complete sense. :smile:

AtheistArchon

April 2nd 2003, 12:14 AM

- Actually, after skimming your reference TFS, I think a new thread on the details of information might be in order. There's a lot to cover, I think, and I have the (sometimes) bad habit of being overly verbose. :smile: Would you be willing to relocate?

TheFiveSolas

April 2nd 2003, 04:28 PM

Atheist,
Sure, start a new thread on the subject of Information. Bear in mind that it sometimes takes me a little while to respond to posts since I'm in the middle of 21 credits worth of undergrad coursework AND am also pursuing a masters (in addition to teaching, being a single parent, etc. :help: ).

Kab594

April 2nd 2003, 10:17 PM

i have to add a statement to Morality in which i completely agree with

the nonbeliever would say man gets goodness, justice and morals from his own existence and his mind. His mind was created with the intention of him to favor goodness over evil and justice over injustice. yet the nonbeliever has no idea how this mindset was created. the theist would say it is a grace from God that lets me live morally.

TenDimensions

April 3rd 2003, 06:14 PM

Yesterday @ 09:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Kab594:
the nonbeliever would say man gets goodness, justice and morals from his own existence and his mind. His mind was created with the intention of him to favor goodness over evil and justice over injustice. yet the nonbeliever has no idea how this mindset was created. the theist would say it is a grace from God that lets me live morally.

A nonbeliever can easily explain "universal" morals as having evolved in order to make society workable - otherwise the group wouldn't have survived.

I'm comfortable saying that any "universal" moral you could come up with has a fairly easy trace back to ancestoral times that makes sense in a primitive animal way. All other morals are up for grabs and instances through history and cultures show that non-universal morals fluctuate like the wind.

Butters

April 4th 2003, 07:34 PM

well TFS,

since you have ignored my earlier posts, at least answer one question.

I assert that contrary to your theory, " I " have free will. " I " m only constrained by my self. " I " am a collection of neurons and electrochemical reactions, controlled by my genetic makeup, and my past experiences. Now the question is;

how would the addition of a soul change this equation?

thank you

TheFiveSolas

April 4th 2003, 08:38 PM

Butters,

I haven't ignored your post (or the ones by TenDimensions and Void :hi: ). I've been busy being sick with the flu, taking 21 undergrad credits, and pursuing a masters (in addition to being a single parent). The only posts that I've made have been short ones in a few other threads.

With that being said, I don't deny that you have free will, I deny that a materialistic view of the universe can provide for the existence of free will. As I've stated in earlier posts, matter and energy act/react according to their inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc. Therefore, since matter behaves according to fixed physical laws it necessarily follows that matter CANNOT choose HOW it will react, no matter how complex the interactions.

In addition, matter is composed SOLELY of particulars (i.e., particular electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, etc.). The reality of an "I" or a "YOU" or a "ME" PRESUPPOSES the existence of universals. Universals are what UNITE the particulars into a whole. A materialistic worldview is a metaphysic that PRECLUDES universals. Therefore, a materialistic worldview, if true, would make the "I" or "YOU" that unites your particular atoms IMPOSSIBLE.

Lastly (for now, since I'm about to take more decongestant, which makes me drowsy :zzz: ), I'll point out that my argument is NOT that positing a "soul" solves the problem. In fact, I've nowhere argued for the existence of a soul. What I have argued is that without God you have no rational justification for asserting that there exists a "universal" that unites the atoms into a "YOU".

Now, if you wish to deny this you will first need to offer a coherent reason for asserting that there exists a "YOU" that unites the atoms that make up your brain and body. In other words, what you need is a metaphysic (view of reality) that can rationally account for the existence of universals. Remember, there are about 100 BILLION neurons in the brain of an average human brain. You need to posit a MATERIAL-ONLY explanation as to WHAT unites the firing of these billions of INDIVIDUAL neurons AND also posit HOW the biochemistry that controls the firing of these neurons can be FREELY CONTROLLED/CHOSEN by "YOU".

Butters

April 5th 2003, 06:15 PM

TFS,

First, allow me to apologize for being rude. I see that you do have your hands full. I also hope that you get to feeling better.

after rereading these threads, I feel that the atheist and the theist are talking past each other. I will take the time to consolidate some ideas and try this again.

but the biggest problem I see is that you have presupposed the Christian God. If you're not able to show presupposition as true, then this is all mental masturbation. Maybe we can work on this also. Until then try to get some rest, and get to feeling better.

TenDimensions

April 5th 2003, 11:08 PM

Just a couple of points to clarify my position with you, TFS... :smile:

Yesterday @ 07:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:
With that being said, I don't deny that you have free will, I deny that a materialistic view of the universe can provide for the existence of free will.

I agree with you! It's just that I think when people hear my opinion of people not having "free will" they think of us as simple automatons when I think it's much more complex than that.

As I've stated in earlier posts, matter and energy act/react according to their inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc. Therefore, since matter behaves according to fixed physical laws it necessarily follows that matter CANNOT choose HOW it will react, no matter how complex the interactions.

Exactly! :smile: Of course, the behavior of people stems from their past experiences which are physically recorded in the brain as one method of survival. There is no possible way the brain can "choose" to do something that it hasn't already been exposed to as a possible choice. But again, the brain is so complicated in its ability to combine different ideas that its reactions can very often appear to be very original. While the truth of the matter is that ideas (memes) evolve as they are processed and replicated by the brains that react to them.

In addition, matter is composed SOLELY of particulars (i.e., particular electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, etc.). The reality of an "I" or a "YOU" or a "ME" PRESUPPOSES the existence of universals. Universals are what UNITE the particulars into a whole.

I think I may have lost you here. I am for all intents and purposes am a walking, talking brain that conveniently refers to itself as "I" because it is a machine that has been wired through millions of years of evolution to successfully interact with its environment as a separate entity.

A materialistic worldview is a metaphysic that PRECLUDES universals. Therefore, a materialistic worldview, if true, would make the "I" or "YOU" that unites your particular atoms IMPOSSIBLE.

Now I've definitely lost you here. The concept of "I" and "YOU" are constructions of our own brains for the purposes of classifying our environment for better survival. Any additional meaning you see in those words are meanings that you bring to those words.

Now, if you wish to deny this you will first need to offer a coherent reason for asserting that there exists a "YOU" that unites the atoms that make up your brain and body. In other words, what you need is a metaphysic (view of reality) that can rationally account for the existence of universals. Remember, there are about 100 BILLION neurons in the brain of an average human brain. You need to posit a MATERIAL-ONLY explanation as to WHAT unites the firing of these billions of INDIVIDUAL neurons AND also posit HOW the biochemistry that controls the firing of these neurons can be FREELY CONTROLLED/CHOSEN by "YOU".

This is interesting. I hear two things in that paragraph. 1) That somehow your brain must have some centralized choreographer running the show - a complete misconception of how the brain works and 2) that these neurons' centralized choreographer is "YOU".

So, just to clarify my position - I am saying there is no "YOU" running the show in your brain. Your neurons collectively work to produce reactions in your body based on what is going on in your environment. Those neurons react the way they do because they are wired that way through the forces of evolution. At some point along the path of evolution various aspects of the brain functions advanced to such a point, mainly language and abstract visualizations, that concepts such as "I" and "YOU" began to emerge. The fact that our brains' survival never depended on figuring out how they "worked" means we as machines have a very difficult time thinking of ourselves that way.

Let's put it another way: Do you think the boy, David, in the movie A.I. was correct in thinking of himself as a "boy"? Who are we to tell him what he's feeling is just "stuff that people programmed into him"? Sure, we programmed it into him, but does it make it any less real for "him"? Obviously identifying him as a "him" or a "you" would require accepting the fact that he thinks in terms of "YOU" and "I" in the first place, right?

Just because our brains have been gradually wired through the natural forces of selective pressures doesn't make our brains any less "programmed".

Okay, let's try it one more way: Certainly there are functional aspects of our brains that appear to us as more "hard wired" and therefore "programmed" than other aspects. Your beating heart or the rubber-hammer-to-the-knee reaction are very "machine-like" in nature. So through what logical mechanism do you draw the line between the "real machine" who is "YOU" and the "someone-who-is-more-than-the-sum-of-the-parts" you?

Butters

April 6th 2003, 12:30 PM

Hello Ten Dimensions,

I find it interesting that we both agree that we are only the sum of our parts, but disagree on what this means in reference to free will. It seems to me that " I " may have a free will, in other words " I " can make free decisions. But it is " I " that is making these decisions. In any context how could I make a decision other than what I would make? I have had the free will to make my own decisions, however these decisions will always be based on who " I " am. It seems to me that TFS would have to show how the Christian worldview would change this. I understand your point, that I cannot be anything other than what I am, but this is true with any world view, and I do not believe that this negates " free will ". I also see that TFS is implying that there must be something " other " then " I " that controls our actions. I do not see how this is necessary or would change the concept of free will. I am what I am and that's all that I am!

TenDimensions

April 6th 2003, 06:03 PM

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Butters:
I find it interesting that we both agree that we are only the sum of our parts, but disagree on what this means in reference to free will.

I suspect that has more to do with the definition of "free will" in this conversation as you and I both agree that we are material, physical beings.

It seems to me that " I " may have a free will, in other words " I " can make free decisions. But it is " I " that is making these decisions. In any context how could I make a decision other than what I would make?

Exactly - I agree. But is that really anything more than a very complicated piece of machinery reacting to a given situation based on past experience? The term "free will" as TFS seems to be using it appears to imply that we can somehow be mysteriously more than what we are - very complicated machines.

I have had the free will to make my own decisions, however these decisions will always be based on who " I " am. It seems to me that TFS would have to show how the Christian worldview would change this.

I agree with this as well. Here's the problem: TFS is baiting the materialists into some conflict with the general concept of "free will" because he is attributing more to the decision process mechanisms of the brain than it actually should be given credit for. I disagree with the definition of free will as TFS has given it since he seems to think that a purely physical machine can't have free will. I happen to think that someday our computers will be so advanced as to be able to make decisions. At what point would these machines have the "free will" that TFS is talking about?

I understand your point, that I cannot be anything other than what I am, but this is true with any world view, and I do not believe that this negates " free will ". I also see that TFS is implying that there must be something " other " then " I " that controls our actions. I do not see how this is necessary or would change the concept of free will. I am what I am and that's all that I am!

Right, but he's trying to draw a materialist into a conflict between the commonly accepted term of "free will" and what it means to be a materialist.

If we can not make a decision that we already don't know is a possible choice then how is it that we aren't just complex machines? I have no problem using the term free will to describe that very complicated and (most likely) unpredictable process. But it doesn't mean that it's not completely physical in nature.

I guess another way of saying it is that I know we are just what we are physically and I have never witnessed a human action that required supernatural explanation to explain why they would behave in such a manner. To say otherwise would be to contradict the statement that we can be more than the sum of our life experiences.

TheFiveSolas

April 13th 2003, 11:20 PM

Void wrote:

I agree that language is objective in the sense that to be able to communicate between humans we have to have a shared a definition of words and a shared grammar but these are the results of negotiation both formal and informal between individuals and groups.

The only problem with this assessment is that negotiation would be impossible without first having at least some words in common.

You continued:

With Scripture we can no longer negotiate with the writers, and the ultimate author does not seem to want to give any further clarification.

The above is a self-refuting argument. All the writers or author would be able to do is "clarify" by using more words. If words are ambiguous, as your critique needs them to be for your argument to have any force, then the writers would be unable to unambiguously clear up any misunderstandings (not to mention the fact that you would be unable to unambiguously make your critique in the first place). Therefore, if it is possible for words to be used (by the original writers, speaker, or whoever) to clear up ambiguity, then it necessarily follows that unambiguous words could have been used in the first place.

You continued:

A mere four hundred odd years separate us from Shakespeare and we have some cultural continuity but we can not unambiguously decode this passage. Three thousand odd years separate us from the composers of the Old Testament how can we be sure of any interpretation of those ancient words that deal with the psychological parts of our lives, faith, hope, love, guilt and the others.

My rebuttal above provides most of what I would say in response to this with the following addition. God, unlike Shakespeare, is the originator of language and is also the providential upholder of all things in all ages. Therefore, if it was God's purpose for Scripture to be understandable to whom He desired to understand it, then it follows that it will be.

The point I'm making here is that it is begging the question to compare fallible human works with one that is alleged to have its origin in God. If Scripture is what it claims to be then it is the work of a being that is ontologically different from all other human works.

This also helps me to illustrate something that is often overlooked in these types of discussions. Our approach to these types of issues is never neutral, it either is anti-theistic or it is Christian theistic. In the above you are assuming, right from the outset, that the Bible is a work on par with all other human works. Your approach, therefore, is biased against Christianity right from the outset.

You continued:

I don’t believe language is completely the product of an individual but the result of many individuals functioning in a culture. I don’t think words can have meanings that are inherent to them (well not since Babel maybe LOL) that we would know instinctively without first being taught by another human.

I agree that language is a personal and communal tool and therefore cannot be individualistic in origin. I also agree that words don't have meaning inherent in them. Rather, they are tools for communication between persons.

This issue helps me illustrate another problem with non-Christian worldviews, especially physicalistic ones.

When we type a word on a computer screen the MEANING of the symbols (letters, numbers, etc.) CANNOT be reduced to the physical medium that is being utilized to "carry" the message. Analyzing the physical components of the pixels (i.e., their arrangement, their luminosity, mass, chemical composition, etc.) will NEVER get us to the message. The message/meaning itself is NON-PHYSICAL because things like concepts are non-physical entities.

Without a metaphysic (view of reality) that can rationally account for the existence of the non-physical, you are left without a foundation for language, concepts, meaning, etc.

(More to come...)

TenDimensions

April 14th 2003, 07:42 AM

Yesterday @ 11:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65629#post65629)
TheFiveSolas:
The only problem with this assessment is that negotiation would be impossible without first having at least some words in common.

This is just simply not true. Two people speaking completely different languages - or no language at all - can easily invent a language in order to communicate. Language has been proven to be a hard-wired capability in the human brain to the extent that deaf orphans in Third World nations have been observed developing their own unique brand of sign language as a means of communicating. In fact, these events have been extensively observed and studied as a means by which cognitive scientists can better understand the nature of how language is hard-wired into the brain.

Your assumption that "at least some words in common" would be necessary for the negotiating of more words is simply naive. Hand gestures were undoubtedly used long before meaningful vocal sounds could be created. Again, the human capability for language has been solidly proven to be hard-wired into the brain.

(More to come...)

I am patiently and eagerly waiting a response to any of my posts to you on this thread, 5S. :smile:

TheFiveSolas

April 14th 2003, 06:11 PM

Ten wrote:

This is just simply not true. Two people speaking completely different languages - or no language at all - can easily invent a language in order to communicate.

I don't think that such a feat can be described as "easy". Also, I don't think that what they are doing can be referred to as "negotiating" in the normal sense that the word is used. Until they actually have "words" or "hand signs" that both understand (as to its referent) they are not communicating in a verbal sense.

I do agree that our brains are designed for language. Norm Chomsky argued (starting in 1979) that language acquisition is the result of an innate grammmatical ability.

You continued:

Hand gestures were undoubtedly used long before meaningful vocal sounds could be created.

I don't know of any evidence of this being the case. The only instances of species other than humans using hand gestures (of the type that would be analagous to verbal language) are primates that we've taught it. None appear naturally in the wild that I'm aware of.

TenDimensions

April 14th 2003, 08:12 PM

Today @ 06:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66728#post66728)
TheFiveSolas:
I don't think that such a feat can be described as "easy".

That would really depend on what level of communication we're trying to get to. If I were stranded on a desert island with someone who only spoke Chinese I'm willing to be that within a couple of days we would have a pretty good language between the two of us, even if that meant making up new words for everything. I don't think we'd be arguing TAG anytime soon, though. :smile:

Also, I don't think that what they are doing can be referred to as "negotiating" in the normal sense that the word is used. Until they actually have "words" or "hand signs" that both understand (as to its referent) they are not communicating in a verbal sense.

I think language was born out of the necessity to communicate physical ideas thus the beginning of a new negotiated language would begin with me picking up a rock and saying "Rock" and showing it to the person I'm trying to communicate with. Language wasn't "invented" by man to debate TAG, it evolved as a means for survival.

I do agree that our brains are designed for language.

Through natural selection, of course. :rofl:

The only instances of species other than humans using hand gestures (of the type that would be analagous to verbal language) are primates that we've taught it. None appear naturally in the wild that I'm aware of.

Okay, I'll give you that point, although it is my assumption (and I feel a reasonable one) that language would have begun through the manipulation and referencing of the physical world around us. Of course, it's completely unprovable without a time machine, but I would imagine that as early primates got smarter they first started to communicate simply be showing each other different physical actions. In fact, I remember reading that the ability to harness the power of abstract thought was supposed to be a major milestone in early man - evidenced by burying their dead and cave paintings.

In any event, I'll retract the statement of "undoubtedly" and replace it with "I think it is reasonable to assume language started as gestures".

TheFiveSolas

April 18th 2003, 11:25 PM

Void,
To continue where I left off...

You wrote:

The problem is that the original words are lost in case of the Old Testament; we do not have access to the original oral traditions and in the New Testament for some books, I am reading the original Aramaic translated into Greek translated into English, so whose words am I reading?

For the record, the New Testament is not translated from Aramaic into Greek and from there into English. Rather, the New Testament was written in Greek, with a few small parts in Aramaic (note: those few parts are usually kept in Aramaic in our English translations with a translation in a footnote). My point is simply this, for the New Testament (along with the Old), we have translations made directly from the original language, not a chain of intermediaries.

Secondly, we have ancient Greek copies of the Old Testament, by which we are able to see what those "lost" words were translated into by the ancient Hebrew scribes. In other words, we not only have ancient Hebrew and Greek copies, but also possess translations made into other languages. We are able to look at which words were used in the translations into these other languages, this helps us to understand what the original word meant.

Lastly, the idea of "lost meaning" begs the question as to who the author of the text is. As I've pointed out before, IF Scripture is what it claims, the revelation of an all-powerful God who providentially controls all aspects of the world, then it follows that He is able to preserve His Word to mankind and our ability to meaningfully translate it.

(more to come...)

TheFiveSolas

May 6th 2003, 10:35 PM

Butters:
I believe that your constructing an either or argument. The laws of logic or a material, however they are not a non physical entity. The laws of logic are merely a process constructed to investigate the nature of reality. They are only an abstract concept. The laws of logic or not any " thing ". They do not exist outside the mind of man.

If logic is nothing more than a convention of men then there is nothing universal about it. If there is nothing universal about logic then logic is utterly subjectve (since it was created in the mind of an individual). In other words, such a view of logic reduces logic to nothing more than "what MY mind constructed to investigate reality."

In addition, if logic is the subjective construction of an individual's mind, then it necessarily follows that what logic is to one person CANNOT be the same as what another person holds as logic. In other words, if what Butters asserted is true, then no one can claim that a person is being illogical.

Such a view of logic reduces to nothing more than one's personal preference as to how to think, what deductions one prefers, etc.

Yet, atheists use the term logic as if it IS universally binding upon others. In doing so, I submit that they are borrowing from the Christian conception of logic as being something that TRANSCENDS the individual AND is binding upon others.

Edit to add:

Butters:
Christians like to point out that it takes faith for an atheist to believe that the sun will rise everyday. However, this is entirely misleading. We cannot prove the sun will not rise tomorrow. However, since we know the nature of our solar system, and we have the experience of everyone who came before us, the only reasonable assumption that we can make is that the sun will rise tomorrow. If we want to speculate that the sun will not rise tomorrow, we must show some reason for this.

Well, I agree that we need reasons for what we believe and the assumptions we hold to.

In the above you spoke of "the nature of the universe". The problem is one of inductive inference. How can one justify the belief that the unobserved future will be like the past. One has to presuppose that nature acts uniformly. The question is which worldview can rationally account for this presupposition? The Christian worldview presupposes a rational God of Order that created the universe. Therefore, it is rational for Christians to believe that the universe of the future will be as scientifically predictable as it was in the past.

In addition, such a view presupposes that there exists universal qualities/natures that are shared between different things (e.g., atoms, molecules, chemicals, energy, etc.). In the materialistic/physicalistic view only finite individual things exist (i.e., particulars). There are NO universals. However, in the Christian worldview there exist both particulars AND universals. Therefore, it is rational for Christians to affirm that particulars can share a common "nature" by which their actions/reactions can be observed and inductive inferences made regarding unobserved instances.

I submit that whenever non-Christians affirm inductive inference they are borrowing from the Christian conception of the uniformity of nature, the reliablity of our sense perception, and the rationality of our thinking.

Entropic Gnosis

May 14th 2003, 12:39 AM

sorry double post

Entropic Gnosis

May 14th 2003, 12:43 AM

Yet, atheists use the term logic as if it IS universally binding upon others. In doing so, I submit that they are borrowing from the Christian conception of logic as being something that TRANSCENDS the individual AND is binding upon others.

This statement about CHRISTIAN logic is not historicaly valid as the formal concept comes directly from the PAGAN greeks. The logic wasnt fused into christianity untill several centuries after christ by such people as Origen of Alexandria. origen himself said that logic was a tool of the pagans but that it had great value for people reguardless of the belief in god.
While logic did become a potent tool of the medieval church and such people as St. Thomas Aquinas. While much of the teaching of logic has had christian overtones the subject itself was not forulated by christians.
One could argue that many of the greek philosophers believed in a trancendant deity, this deity was removed and impersonal not at all like the Abrahaic god, especially his christian interpretation.

Logic does not have its roots in christianity, but rather it bacame christianized later

wwatts

May 15th 2003, 04:29 PM

1. If for any proposition A you need a justification B therein exists a vicious infinite regress.

2. Vicious Infinite regresses do not exist

3. Therefore there is at least one proposition (A) that does not need a justification (B)

From Dictionary.com

a pri•o•ri: Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.

Ok given (3) and our definition of a-priori knowledge, I think an atheist can simply believe in an existing 'transcendental logic' a-priori without having to have a justification for it. What's more, logic is timeless so it doesn't have to be created with the initial cosmological singularity with the beginning of the universe(given that there is one), so it doesn't have to be created (ie have a first moment in time).

Also with presuppositionalism God is a-priori, so there’s really no justification for God either. So we can say God is in the same boat with transcendental logic. That part of the TAG isn't convicing to me. Now maybe the morality part of TAG could be developed like this:

1) Objective moral values can't exist without an unchanging person.
2) Objective moral values exist.
3) Therefore an unchanging person exists.

But atheists just deny (2) all night and day. Then of course, they act like they believe in (2) later when someone wrongs them, but they could say that's just self preservation.

I think Alvin Plantinga has a form of the transcendental argument that is slightly more compelling. By compelling I mean it has premises that are more widely accepted. Let me see if I can remember it, I know it was an inductive argument.

1. It would be circular reasoning for humanoid A to use its own cognitive faculties to determine if its own cognitive faculties are generally reliable.

2. The probability of any humanoid A actually having cognitive faculties that are generally reliable are
2.a low (less then 50%) or
2.b inscrutable (unknown).

3. If it is unknown if a proposition is true, then there is a defeater for that proposition.

4. If generally unreliable cognitive faculties hold a proposition as true, those cognitive faculties are probably wrong about that proposition.

5. Therefore any humanoid either has a defeater for everything it holds true, or is probably wrong about everything it holds true, including atheism, materialism, etc (4, 3, 2)

Then he says theists deny (2) but atheists usually don't. The definition of humaniod in (1) is anything that even slightly resembles us, like neanderthals or human-like things on other planets. The definition of cognitive faculties is the things we use to reason (whatever they may be - logica etc), along with our empirical senses. All it ends up doing is forcing atheist's to admit that our cognitive faculties are generally reliable a-priori, for no reason at all, which they hate doing for some reason. Well I guess it's fun to make people do what they hate? I dunno ...

One thing that is cool is you can't use evolution to say that your cognitive faculties are probably generally reliable, because evolution is discovered using your cognitive faculties, so it would be circular reasoning. I guess that is where the transcendental part of it comes from. I dunno ...

TheFiveSolas

May 15th 2003, 05:14 PM

wwatts,

Welcome to TWeb! Excellent post. I'll try to get to it within the next couple of days.

djdavo

May 15th 2003, 08:40 PM

you can also argue the negative of this, can't you? for example:

"If everything about man can be explained in scientific, evolutionary terms, Our belief that we're exploring truth is merely the result of our physical wiring over which we have no control.

In other words, this kind of physicalism always seems to lead to some kind of determinism: Everything about us is determined by our prior physical states. It's very hard to argue, then, that there is any truth at all to be known, moral or otherwise.
"
"It (evolutionary theory) reduces morality to mere survival, to pragmatics. We feel moral urgings because these moral urgings help us to survive better. They have at their core self-preservation in mind. But does self-preservation truly capture what we mean when we say a thing is moral. Indeed many things that fall into the moral category have to do with denying self.
"

"doesn't account for guilt we may feel for wantonly mistreating some other animal"

"Consider two cavemen in neighboring villages. One kills the other in cold blood. We're being asked to believe that he feels guilt because he realizes such an act ultimately undermines his own survival status.....In the rest of the animal kingdom, killing the opposition seems to secure just the opposite. "

this is from an interesting article on morality and evolution

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/mrlsevlv.htm

TheFiveSolas

August 22nd 2003, 02:28 PM

wwatts,

Another TWeb member alerted me that I had NEVER responded to your post and so I'm attempting to do that now! (Depending upon time I might only get to part of it).

1. If for any proposition A you need a justification B therein exists a vicious infinite regress.

2. Vicious Infinite regresses do not exist

As a Christian I can agree that infinite regresses do not exist. In addition, since Christians affirm that an all-knowing God has objectively revealed certain truths about the nature of reality we have rational justification for claiming to know whether something (in this case infinite regresses) can exist or not. In other words, God's revelation provides an epistemological justification for making such denials (or claims) about the nature of reality. However, non-Christian (non-revelational) epistemologies cannot justify such a denial.

IOW, in your very denial of infinite regresses you are "a priori" assuming a Christian worldview. The only one in which it is rationally justifiable to make assertions or denials about what does and does not (or can and cannot) exist.

Now, I made a (big?) deal of the above in order to illustrate a point. That point being that in order to make sense out of any assertion or denial (or anything at all) you need to either implicitely or explicitely affirm a Christian worldview. That is the gist of the transcendental argument. God's revelation in nature and Scripture must be affirmed in order to prove or disprove anything and maintain a rational foundation when doing so.

(more to come later, this time I won't forget)

jdjewell

September 11th 2003, 05:39 PM

Passant

September 22nd 2003, 03:48 PM

God's revelation in nature and Scripture must be affirmed in order to prove or disprove anything and maintain a rational foundation when doing so.

O.K. How do you justify your affirmation of Gods revelation and Scripture?

Gilgaron

September 22nd 2003, 04:52 PM

TheFiveSolas:
As a Christian I can agree that infinite regresses do not exist. In addition, since Christians affirm that an all-knowing God has objectively revealed certain truths about the nature of reality we have rational justification for claiming to know whether something (in this case infinite regresses) can exist or not. In other words, God's revelation provides an epistemological justification for making such denials (or claims) about the nature of reality. However, non-Christian (non-revelational) epistemologies cannot justify such a denial.

IOW, in your very denial of infinite regresses you are "a priori" assuming a Christian worldview. The only one in which it is rationally justifiable to make assertions or denials about what does and does not (or can and cannot) exist.

There are plenty of non-Christian beliefs based upon a revelation from a God that would allow such claims to be made. The only philosophy troubled by such a setup would be an atheistic one.

TheFiveSolas

September 22nd 2003, 08:02 PM

gilgaron:
There are plenty of non-Christian beliefs based upon a revelation from a God that would allow such claims to be made. The only philosophy troubled by such a setup would be an atheistic one.

I've dealt with this criticism much earlier in this thread and shown that it doesn't hold water. Atheism along with all other non-Biblical "revelations" are equally problematic.

If I get the time I'll try to look up the exact place where I answered this.

TheFiveSolas

September 22nd 2003, 08:05 PM

Passant:
O.K. How do you justify your affirmation of Gods revelation and Scripture?

Not trying to be flippant, but I've already answered this earlier in this thread. The short answer is that without the epistemological and metaphysical foundation provided by Scripture you are left without ANY foundation for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.

chickenman

September 22nd 2003, 08:22 PM

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/billings_tag.html

this is probably the best summary of why I don't think the TAG is very convincing

TheFiveSolas

September 22nd 2003, 08:30 PM

Chickenman,

Perhaps you'd like to summarize the "argument" put forth by Todd Billings rather than attempting to argue by weblink.

Also, for the sake of brevity, please read through this thread first to make sure that I haven't already addressed it. Doing undergrad and graduate work, plus working full time doesn't leave me with much free time to answer things I've already rebutted long ago.

Thanks.

chickenman

September 22nd 2003, 09:03 PM

Now, we don't know the same for logic. Science hasn't shown us exactly why activities in our universe are constrained by logic or why it is consistent, and/or why the natural forces exist and are constant, but my argument isn't that we do, only that the above scenario shows that it doesn't follow that because you don't have an explanation for the reliability of a phenomenon doesn't mean that you can't assume its reliability, and that you don't have reason for assuming as much.

It further illustrates that just because you have an explanation for a phenomenon and another does not, that does not mean your position is superior, or your explanation is true.

TAG assumes both: that if you don't have an explanation for the reliability of a phenomenon, you can't assume that it is indeed reliable. It further assumes that simply having an explanation, whether proven or not, makes ones position superior to one that does not have an explanation.

By this same logic, we have no basis for prescribing any medication where the mechanism of action is unknown - even if we have unequivocal data from RCT's indicating the medications effectiveness. (You should start a campaign asking that any medication where the mechanism of action is unknown should be removed from the shelves)

I as an atheist don't know why logic holds and is universal. I could come up with an answer, just as you have; but it doesn't mean that either of our answers are right

you can assume that logic holds because there is a christian god , that doesn't mean you're right

Passant

September 22nd 2003, 09:39 PM

Not trying to be flippant, but I've already answered this earlier in this thread. The short answer is that without the epistemological and metaphysical foundation provided by Scripture you are left without ANY foundation for the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.

Yea, you might have answered it before, but this thread is so old, do I have to go back and reread the whole thing?

but I quess what I'm asking is what is your epistemological and metaphysical foundation that justifies the Scripture?

Gilgaron

September 22nd 2003, 11:20 PM

TheFiveSolas,

I backtracked and found your posts regarding my own comment. Instead of arguing with you in an already very long thread, I think I'll just let you continue and see how you follow this one out.

John Powell

October 2nd 2003, 03:28 AM

POWELL:
I posted some long replies here, but then lost track of the thread. No matter.

Apparently, a key element of the Transcendental Argument is that the Bible is inerrant.

Post 87.
TheFiveSolas (to Voidhawk):
Void,
I deny your assertion that Scripture is inconsistent or incoherent.

I affirm, along with the Apostle Peter, that some parts of Scripture are (in context Peter is here referring to Paul's writings) "difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

I assert that wherever a skeptic claims there exists a contradiction, inconsistency, or incoherence in Scripture it must be due to a misreading, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of the text.

I also deny that the skeptic can rationally account for universally binding laws of ANY kind, in this case that of logic.

I again throw the challenge back on your doorstep. Provide for us the objective and universally binding standard by which you infallibly determine the difference between a real contradiction and a mere apparent one.

Post 104.
TheFiveSolas (to Voidhawk):
If Scripture is what it claims, namely the propositional revelation of an all-powerful and rational God who created man in His image, then it logically follows that His Word is able to be understood.

POWELL:
I don't claim that there are universally binding laws of logic, since they are the mental constructs of humans. Logic and mathematics are both very powerful specialized languages. Nor do I claim that I can infallibly objectively determine contradictions in the Bible, since one can always invent implausible what-could-have-been scenarios or arbitrary assignments of literal / figurative meaning. However, there are some passages in the Bible that sure do look like contradictions to me and they look that way to other rational people I know.

I would not expect an OmniGod to produce a Bible that is inerrant, yet look as errant as the Bible looks to me. Others apparently agree with me.

If what TFS affirms is true, that the Bible is not inconsistent and can be understood, then perhaps he would try to explain to us in a way that can be understood how the following passage in Mark is not inconsistent with the Old Testament.

Mark 2:25-26 (KJV):
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

POWELL:
There are some problems with this passage. Two are that the text implies that Abiathar was the high priest when David "did eat the shewbread," and was the priest who gave David the shewbread. However, 1 Sam 21:1-6 and other passages imply that his father Ahimelech was the priest at the time and was the one who gave David the shewbread. Another problem is that the text in 1 Sam implies that David lied to Ahimelech about having companions, so he would not have been able to give "also to them that were with him" as Mark claims.

TheFiveSolas probably believes there's nothing inconsistent here and it's able to be understood, so I await his understandable explanation.

If I claimed that I had always owned the horse I was riding and then a few moments later I claimed that I had never owned the horse that I was riding and people watching could not discern any difference in me or the horse between those two moments, then rational people would consider this to be a contradiction. But, as TheFiveSolas should agree with me. It's not necessarily a contradiction. Most rational people, however, don't require absolute certainty in identifying contradictions. There's a "good enough" for most rational people.

John Powell