Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Presuppositional Apologetics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    But you are begging the question, the universe and its "natural" law is the thing that needs to be explained. And what we know is that intelligence can and does create order and specificity. I have no good reason to believe that the unaided forces of nature could create the kind of cosmos we live in and enjoy. Never mind the fact that in my view we have consciousness producing consciousness (like for like), in your view we have the non-conscious producing its opposite - consciousness (like for unlike). Again, I just don't see why your position is more plausible.
    How am I begging the question? All I am saying is that, as far as the knowledge we currently have about the universe, we have no evidence of a supreme being. Saying that it had to be an intelligence because of order and specificity, even though we have no positive evidence to support the claim, is to make the same mistake mankind has made throughout history. You see a mystery, and because you don't currently understand it you attribute it to God rather than doing the wiser, more humble thing and reserve judgment until we discover more. Thunder and lightening were not from Zeus after all, the seasons didn't change because of Persephone's journey to and from the underworld each year, and the peacock did not get its spots when Hera put them there from the 100 eyes of Argus. We know this now, but to the ancient Greeks these stories made complete sense of things they did not understand. Let us not make the same mistake. Yes, in our experience things that have a design often have a designer. The story comes to mind of a man finding a watch on the beach and instinctively knowing it had a watchmaker. But that is because we know something about watches, how they are made, the fact that watchmakers exist, that they frequently make watches, etc. In other words we infer design because of our prior understanding of watches. But we have no prior understanding of universes. It is not like we have a bunch of universes to study in order to build up a large enough body of knowledge so that we can make inferences based on how they normally come to be. This is why your conclusion that there has to be some kind of grand designer should be extremely tentative. It is hardly a solid enough claim upon which to base a worldview. I share with you the hope that this is the case, but I do not think we can make this claim based on the knowledge we currently have.



    Originally posted by seer View Post
    And what makes more sense? A logical Mind behind a rational universe or the a~logical forces of nature?
    It is not about what makes more sense. It is about what we can demonstrate. It might make sense that there is a logical Mind behind everything. But at that point all you have is a hypothesis, and an unverifiable one at that. How do you verify that this is the case, and go beyond simply saying that this would make so much sense if it were the case?



    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No, it is not a non-issue, the point is that you can not demonstrate, again logically or empirically, that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality (your above appeal to delusions and such do not bear on the question). Which means at the very fundamental level of knowledge, knowledge of the world, you need to begin with an assumption, a presupposition. So it is a double standard for you to chide the theist for doing what you are already doing.
    Actually, we have ways of verifying that what goes on in my mind corresponds with reality. My senses can be compared with one another, as well as with the experience of others. I can also make predictions based on what I think I know and conduct experiments to see if they come to pass. Other people can also conduct the same experiment to see if they get the same results. I already discussed the brain in a vat scenario. Is it a possibility? Sure, and I cannot rule it out. Just like I cannot rule out that there is an invisible dragon following me on my way to work and waiting to consume me in flames if I stop at a red light. I cannot rule this scenario out, and yet it doesn't stop me from stopping at red lights. This is because when we judge how much weight we give to possibilities we take into account how probable they are. And because I have no positive evidence that I am in fact a brain in a vat, I don't give it much weight as a possibility, certainly not to the extent that it undermines my whole ability to know anything. The main reason this is a non-issue, though, is that to whatever extent this is an issue, it is an issue for both of us. Your worldview does not equip you to deal with this problem any more than mine.




    Originally posted by seer View Post
    In one sense you are correct, even the law of God would be subjective to him. Yet it still would be objective to humankind. And objective does not mean absolute. The difference again is this, you live in an unjust universe, I live in a just universe. You live in a amoral universe, I live in a moral universe. Concepts like love, justice, goodness kindness, mercy, etc... are universal and eternal. In your universe there is no governing moral authority, in mine there is. In my universe what the Hutus did to the Tutsi was a violation of these universal moral norms and therefore their acts well be judged at the bar of God. In your world, it is just animals being animals.
    It makes for a good story. How nice it would be if morality were based on universal, transcendent laws. I can appreciate that just as much as you. But we need to stick to what we know, and as far as we know we are conscious beings living in an a-moral universe. Morality is not like the laws of physics or mathematical laws. No one jumps from a building on earth and floats upward, because gravity is an objective reality. No one adds one apple to another apple and somehow produces three apples, because mathematical laws are objective facts about reality. Morality, however, is extremely malleable. We can make what we want of it, which is exactly what we would expect if it were a subjective reality and not an objective one. What evidence would you offer that morality is in fact objective, because all I hear you saying is that you don't like that it is subjective? Once we realize the true nature of morality, the hard part is figuring out how to live together in a world where we sometimes disagree. I admit this is not easy. But I don't think the answer is to comfort ourselves with fairy tales. I don't say that to be condescending. I respect you even though we disagree. I am just saying that you need to demonstrate that you are not just constructing your own reality. As a side note, how is the horror of Rwanda any different than what God ordered Saul to do to Amalek, to kill him and everything he has, including "children and infants" (1 Samual 15:3)?

    Comment


    • #17
      . . . All I am saying is that, as far as the knowledge we currently have about the universe, we have no evidence of a supreme being. . . .
      Well, that cannot be true, the true God being the fundamental self evident true of all self evident truths.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        Well, that cannot be true, the true God being the fundamental self evident true of all self evident truths.

        I agree that some truths are self-evident, and don't require the same kind of argument as other truths. These kind of self-evident truths are known as axioms. We accept them as self-evident because without them we could not know anything. This would include things like trusting that our senses are feeding us accurate information, that this all isn't just an illusion, and the validity of logic. We must accept these things because without doing so we would not be able to know anything. But that is the standard that must be met for something to be considered an axiom. It must be self-evident in the sense that without it you could not know anything. But this is not the case with God. We can in fact know a great deal without assuming God. He is just not necessary. And that is only speaking of God in the generic, deistic sense of a cosmic creator. When you consider actual gods from various religions, the situation becomes way more problematic. When it comes to Yahweh, for instance, the Bible disqualifies itself again and again from being a truly divine revelation.

        Comment


        • #19
          I have a problem with the idea that you see in certain conservative Christian circles that presuppositional apologetics are the only acceptable way to argue for Christianity. Their appeal is already going to be limited to people who reason in a super-logical, syllogistic manner, and then to people who actually accept the logical claims being made. As a Christian, I can't help but think this implies that the gospel call is effectively only for a certain set of INTJ people.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #20
            Why not both?
            Presupisitional, Evidential, and might I add evidential. They all have their pros and cons.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #21
              That was supposed to be behavioral.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Raul View Post
                . . . But this is not the case with God. We can in fact know a great deal without assuming God. He is just not necessary. And that is only speaking of God in the generic, deistic sense of a cosmic creator. When you consider actual gods from various religions, the situation becomes way more problematic. When it comes to Yahweh, for instance, the Bible disqualifies itself again and again from being a truly divine revelation.
                As I stated, the true God is the fundamental self evident truth of all self evident truths. To anyone not preceiving this, the argument can be successfully made that there is no God and no God is needed. And making the premise, that there is no God, cannot, for them, successfully be shown to be absurd.

                God has a very real identity. And He is not the universe nor part of the caused universe. And all genuine Christians do know Him (John 7:17; John 17:3; Acts 17:28), even though they are not yet correcly understanding God's fundamental and very real identity.
                Last edited by 37818; 10-16-2016, 12:11 PM.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Raul View Post
                  How am I begging the question? All I am saying is that, as far as the knowledge we currently have about the universe, we have no evidence of a supreme being. Saying that it had to be an intelligence because of order and specificity, even though we have no positive evidence to support the claim, is to make the same mistake mankind has made throughout history. You see a mystery, and because you don't currently understand it you attribute it to God rather than doing the wiser, more humble thing and reserve judgment until we discover more. Thunder and lightening were not from Zeus after all, the seasons didn't change because of Persephone's journey to and from the underworld each year, and the peacock did not get its spots when Hera put them there from the 100 eyes of Argus. We know this now, but to the ancient Greeks these stories made complete sense of things they did not understand. Let us not make the same mistake. Yes, in our experience things that have a design often have a designer. The story comes to mind of a man finding a watch on the beach and instinctively knowing it had a watchmaker. But that is because we know something about watches, how they are made, the fact that watchmakers exist, that they frequently make watches, etc. In other words we infer design because of our prior understanding of watches. But we have no prior understanding of universes. It is not like we have a bunch of universes to study in order to build up a large enough body of knowledge so that we can make inferences based on how they normally come to be. This is why your conclusion that there has to be some kind of grand designer should be extremely tentative. It is hardly a solid enough claim upon which to base a worldview. I share with you the hope that this is the case, but I do not think we can make this claim based on the knowledge we currently have.
                  And there is no evidence that unaided nature did it. This is not like lightning it is the whole ball of wax, or why we have the natural laws and the kind of universe we have in the first place. So again, we know that intelligence can design and implement specific values and condition - I have zero evidence that non-rational nature, on her own, could create such precise conditions.


                  It is not about what makes more sense. It is about what we can demonstrate. It might make sense that there is a logical Mind behind everything. But at that point all you have is a hypothesis, and an unverifiable one at that. How do you verify that this is the case, and go beyond simply saying that this would make so much sense if it were the case?
                  Well it makes more sense to me, what is your answer "nature did it"? There is no evidence that that is the case. And I'm not sure why you would think that non-conscious, non-intelligent forces of nature creating consciousness and intelligence makes more sense than a Conscious, intelligent source creating consciousness and intelligence.



                  Actually, we have ways of verifying that what goes on in my mind corresponds with reality. My senses can be compared with one another, as well as with the experience of others. I can also make predictions based on what I think I know and conduct experiments to see if they come to pass. Other people can also conduct the same experiment to see if they get the same results. I already discussed the brain in a vat scenario. Is it a possibility? Sure, and I cannot rule it out. Just like I cannot rule out that there is an invisible dragon following me on my way to work and waiting to consume me in flames if I stop at a red light. I cannot rule this scenario out, and yet it doesn't stop me from stopping at red lights. This is because when we judge how much weight we give to possibilities we take into account how probable they are. And because I have no positive evidence that I am in fact a brain in a vat, I don't give it much weight as a possibility, certainly not to the extent that it undermines my whole ability to know anything. The main reason this is a non-issue, though, is that to whatever extent this is an issue, it is an issue for both of us. Your worldview does not equip you to deal with this problem any more than mine.
                  You are missing the point. Every "proof" you offer would be equally true if you lived in the Matrix or if you were a brain in a vat, if you were a brain in a vat, you would not know it. And it is not a non-issue, whether it applies to me is meaningless, it applies across the the board. You have to begin with an unprovable assumption to even get off the ground rationally. That is a "logical' fact.




                  It makes for a good story. How nice it would be if morality were based on universal, transcendent laws. I can appreciate that just as much as you. But we need to stick to what we know, and as far as we know we are conscious beings living in an a-moral universe. Morality is not like the laws of physics or mathematical laws. No one jumps from a building on earth and floats upward, because gravity is an objective reality. No one adds one apple to another apple and somehow produces three apples, because mathematical laws are objective facts about reality. Morality, however, is extremely malleable. We can make what we want of it, which is exactly what we would expect if it were a subjective reality and not an objective one. What evidence would you offer that morality is in fact objective, because all I hear you saying is that you don't like that it is subjective? Once we realize the true nature of morality, the hard part is figuring out how to live together in a world where we sometimes disagree. I admit this is not easy. But I don't think the answer is to comfort ourselves with fairy tales. I don't say that to be condescending. I respect you even though we disagree. I am just saying that you need to demonstrate that you are not just constructing your own reality. As a side note, how is the horror of Rwanda any different than what God ordered Saul to do to Amalek, to kill him and everything he has, including "children and infants" (1 Samual 15:3)?
                  Well I did not construct this Raul, it comes from three thousand years of Biblical, Christian history, grounded in the person, example and teaching of Christ Jesus. But you are making my point. We either live in a a-moral, unjust universe or we live in a moral just universe. I will let the readers decide what intuitively makes more sense. Anyway Raul, I'm done, you may have the last word.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    As I stated, the true God is the fundamental self evident truth of all self evident truths. To anyone not preceiving this, the argument can be successfully made that there is no God and no God is needed. And making the premise, that there is no God, cannot, for them, successfully be shown to be absurd.

                    God has a very real identity. And He is not the universe nor part of the caused universe. And all genuine Christians do know Him (John 7:17; John 17:3; Acts 17:28), even though they are not yet correcly understanding God's fundamental and very real identity.
                    And we have to remember that unbelievers suffer from the noetic effects of sin.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And we have to remember that unbelievers suffer from the noetic effects of sin.
                      Yup.

                      ". . . There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. . . ." -- Romans 3:11.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        I have a problem with the idea that you see in certain conservative Christian circles that presuppositional apologetics are the only acceptable way to argue for Christianity. Their appeal is already going to be limited to people who reason in a super-logical, syllogistic manner, and then to people who actually accept the logical claims being made. As a Christian, I can't help but think this implies that the gospel call is effectively only for a certain set of INTJ people.
                        I would hope anyone who reasons in a super-logical, syllogistic manner would easily recognize the fatal flaw in presuppositional apologetics.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And there is no evidence that unaided nature did it. This is not like lightning it is the whole ball of wax, or why we have the natural laws and the kind of universe we have in the first place. So again, we know that intelligence can design and implement specific values and condition - I have zero evidence that non-rational nature, on her own, could create such precise conditions.
                          So there is no evidence that nature could produce the appearance of design? How about the whole field of evolutionary biology. Your answer completely ignores this. Even if you just take micro evolution, like the shape of the beaks of finches, or the color of people's skin, even there you have nature producing conditions that are incredibly adapted to their surroundings. How can this be? How can it be that nature would produce beaks so fitted for their tasks? I though nature couldn't do this? How could nature produce skin colors so adapted, each to its unique climate? I thought only an intelligent mind could do this. The fact is that as we have learned more and more about the world, we have found that nature can and often does create the appearance of design. This, combined with how often man has been wrong in the past when we attributed the mysterious to God, should cause us to be wary of this approach.




                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Well it makes more sense to me, what is your answer "nature did it"? There is no evidence that that is the case. And I'm not sure why you would think that non-conscious, non-intelligent forces of nature creating consciousness and intelligence makes more sense than a Conscious, intelligent source creating consciousness and intelligence.
                          Again, the idea that there is some kind of intelligence behind the creation of the universe is a possibility. It would certainly explain the universe's fine-tuning. Now where is the evidence that his is the case? The fact that it could be the case simply means that you have a hypothesis that has yet to be tested. Because it could also be the case that the universe came about by some natural means that at this point is unknown to us, just like various natural phenomena that ancient people didn't understand (and wrongly attributed to the gods). Also, as I already mentioned, nature often creates the appearance of design.





                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          You are missing the point. Every "proof" you offer would be equally true if you lived in the Matrix or if you were a brain in a vat, if you were a brain in a vat, you would not know it. And it is not a non-issue, whether it applies to me is meaningless, it applies across the the board. You have to begin with an unprovable assumption to even get off the ground rationally. That is a "logical' fact.
                          Right, we accept certain truths as self-evident. These are known as axioms. They are necessary starting points, without which you could not know anything. Assuming we are not living in the Matrix is a valid axiom. Assuming God exists is not a valid axiom. We can actually know a great deal without it.






                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Well I did not construct this Raul, it comes from three thousand years of Biblical, Christian history, grounded in the person, example and teaching of Christ Jesus. But you are making my point. We either live in a a-moral, unjust universe or we live in a moral just universe. I will let the readers decide what intuitively makes more sense. Anyway Raul, I'm done, you may have the last word.
                          I understand you did not personally construct it, but it is still very much a human construction. It just happens to be an ancient one that you've inherited. But you didn't answer my question. How do you demonstrate that morality is an objective reality? I don't think that you actually can. I, however, provided a simple explanation of why I think morality is subjective. So we start here with the nature of morality. And now that we understand that it is by nature subjective, we can start figuring out how to get along with one another when we at times disagree. Sometimes this results in conflict, but this is the case with or without God. In a world with God, you still have people with their own ideas of morality battling one another in order to enforce their particular views. I know in the end, supposedly, God wins. But that is just a story. It is an easy claim to make and you don't have to lift a finger to prove it. You can just make the claim. The fact is you live in the same world I do. A world where morality is subjective and because of that sometimes we disagree about which moral framework is best. Luckily, though, human nature has a predisposition towards empathy and a well-ordered society (inherited by our primate ancestors). This simplifies the task of figuring out what we value, which serves as an objective foundation to decide what behaviors are most consistent and conducive to those values.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            . . .Assuming God exists is not a valid axiom. . .
                            . . . Assuming uncaused existence is not a valid axiom. . . .
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              . . . Assuming uncaused existence is not a valid axiom. . . .
                              Naturalism doesn't assume uncaused existence. It is obvious that something caused the universe to exist. But what exactly that cause was is a mystery. And as I pointed out, attributing mystery to God has historically proven itself to be very much not a safe assumption. This is because even though it seems to explain away the mystery, it is not actually based on any positive evidence. So the wiser, and more humble, approach is to simply admit that we don't know, and continue trying to improve our knowledge so that one day we might know.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Raul View Post
                                Naturalism doesn't assume uncaused existence. It is obvious that something caused the universe to exist. But what exactly that cause was is a mystery. And as I pointed out, attributing mystery to God has historically proven itself to be very much not a safe assumption. This is because even though it seems to explain away the mystery, it is not actually based on any positive evidence. So the wiser, and more humble, approach is to simply admit that we don't know, and continue trying to improve our knowledge so that one day we might know.
                                You have to have existence to have anything. And nothingness is what never existed. Therefore there was always existence. Uncaused existence. Naturalism is contingent on existence.

                                Existence is always presumed.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                353 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X