Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 192

Thread: Presuppositional Apologetics

  1. #21
    tWebber TheWall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,893
    Amen (Given)
    1309
    Amen (Received)
    1425
    That was supposed to be behavioral.

  2. #22
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,742
    Amen (Given)
    794
    Amen (Received)
    422
    Quote 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 at 05:11 PM.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

  3. #23
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,362
    Amen (Given)
    1000
    Amen (Received)
    3935
    Quote 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.
    “The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.” C.S. Lewis

  4. #24
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,362
    Amen (Given)
    1000
    Amen (Received)
    3935
    Quote 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.
    “The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.” C.S. Lewis

  5. Amen 37818 amen'd this post.
  6. #25
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,742
    Amen (Given)
    794
    Amen (Received)
    422
    Quote 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 to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

  7. #26
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,578
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1072
    Quote 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.

  8. Amen stfoskey15 amen'd this post.
  9. #27
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Faith
    Non-theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    25
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    3
    Quote 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.




    Quote 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.





    Quote 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.






    Quote 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.

  10. #28
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,742
    Amen (Given)
    794
    Amen (Received)
    422
    . . .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 to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

  11. #29
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Faith
    Non-theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    25
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    3
    Quote 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.

  12. #30
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,742
    Amen (Given)
    794
    Amen (Received)
    422
    Quote 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 to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •