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

  • #31
    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.
    At some level, you necessarily have uncaused existence no matter the paradigm. If it's an uncaused creator or an uncaused universe of whatever form, something just plain exists axiomatically.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      . . . Assuming uncaused existence is not a valid axiom. . . .
      The alternative is self-caused which is incoherent.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
        The alternative is self-caused which is incoherent.
        Caused things are contingent on there being an existence. An uncaused cause would be two things. Uncaused and being a cause. Uncaused needs to be an existence. A cause is contingent on an existence.
        . . . 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


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Caused things are contingent on there being an existence. An uncaused cause would be two things. Uncaused and being a cause. Uncaused needs to be an existence. A cause is contingent on an existence.
          So maybe you should try to reconcile these statements with your previous claim that uncaused existence isn't a valid axiom (it is). You contradict yourself.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            . . . Assuming uncaused existence is not a valid axiom. . . .
            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            So maybe you should try to reconcile these statements with your previous claim that uncaused existence isn't a valid axiom (it is). You contradict yourself.
            It was not a valid statement even as, "Assuming God exists is not a valid axiom. . ." was not a valid statement. God being the Self-Existent. God's identity being Uncaused Existence.
            . . . 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


            • #36
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              It was not a valid statement even as, "Assuming God exists is not a valid axiom. . ." was not a valid statement. God being the Self-Existent. God's identity being Uncaused Existence.
              I don't understand what you're saying. Any form of uncaused existence is a valid axiom.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Well I would agree that a rational Creator is a good precondition for logic and an intelligible universe, whether or not God is a necessary condition is another story.
                You might be interested in this paper. (Link downloads a pdf.)

                ... argue that the very idea of logical laws presupposes the existence of God as the only viable metaphysical basis for such laws.
                http://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_L...tradiction.pdf

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by David Hayward View Post
                  You might be interested in this paper. (Link downloads a pdf.)
                  Thanks David, it is similar to the arguments I head from Greg Bahnsen.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    I don't understand what you're saying. Any form of uncaused existence is a valid axiom.
                    An uncaused existence is not in need of any kind of God. That is key here. So the only thing which could possibly even be a God would be that uncaused existence. Uncaused existence not having a beginning would be eternal. And an uncaused existence would effectively be omnipresent since there can be nothing else without it. And that is just for starters.
                    . . . 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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      An uncaused existence is not in need of any kind of God. That is key here. So the only thing which could possibly even be a God would be that uncaused existence. Uncaused existence not having a beginning would be eternal. And an uncaused existence would effectively be omnipresent since there can be nothing else without it. And that is just for starters.
                      Eternal Natural Laws could qualify for an uncaused cause of an eternal uncaused existence.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Raul View Post
                        I am a secular humanist, former Christian, and as a Christian I used a presuppositional approach to defending the faith. But I see so many problems with it now. Are there any Christians out there who are currently convinced that this is a good approach? I am looking to challenge and be challenged. It might include arguments like the atheist worldview doesn't have the necessary preconditions for logic, since for all he knows he is just a "brain in a vat". Or another popular one is that atheists don't have the necessary preconditions for morality, since they have no objective standard against which to judge what is right and what is wrong.
                        Something like Greg Bahnsen's argument? No, I wouldn't use that argument.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Raul View Post
                          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.
                          You are simply going with circular reasoning here. You assume that nature is able to cause things to evolve. Then, since things evolved, they are explained by nature.

                          Where have you shown that 'nature' has intrinsic ability to cause evolution apart from deity?

                          At best the sciences can merely explain that animals seemed to change in certain sequences. The scientist can only document changes that found to have happened. Even if they identify the mechanisms which allow for such change, they don't have a method to identify whether those mechanisms originated accidentally or by, for example, divine design.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            You are simply going with circular reasoning here. You assume that nature is able to cause things to evolve. Then, since things evolved, they are explained by nature.

                            Where have you shown that 'nature' has intrinsic ability to cause evolution apart from deity?

                            At best the sciences can merely explain that animals seemed to change in certain sequences. The scientist can only document changes that found to have happened. Even if they identify the mechanisms which allow for such change, they don't have a method to identify whether those mechanisms originated accidentally or by, for example, divine design.
                            Do you deny that things like skin color, or the shapes of finch beaks, or different breeds of dogs, or antibiotic resistant bacteria, or any other example of life adapting to its surroundings, have a natural explanation?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Eternal Natural Laws could qualify for an uncaused cause of an eternal uncaused existence.
                              It is a bald assertion to make the gerneral statement that "Natural Laws" are eternal. Define these "Natural Laws." Define what you mean by "Natural." Anything which might exist is contingent on an existence. Only uncaused existence is self existent. All other things existent are contingent upon an uncaused existence.
                              . . . 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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Raul View Post
                                Do you deny that things like skin color, or the shapes of finch beaks, or different breeds of dogs, or antibiotic resistant bacteria, or any other example of life adapting to its surroundings, have a natural explanation?
                                I think Mike is saying that the evolutionary process itself my be designed as opposed to being a completely haphazard phenomenon.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 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