An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny don't answer a question with a question - and you know there are a number of different views, with God playing a greater or lesser role. So I will ask again Shuny - what part did God actually play in the process - in other words what would have been different if God was not involved?

God is the Creator in the process. Seer this has been discussed many, many times.

[seer]

I think a more complete definition of the Argument from Ignorance is worth citing. Please note highlighted.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1.true
2.false
3.unknown between true or false
4.being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

© Copyright Original Source

Appealing the lack of evidence of 'things' or 'evidence' not seen nor witnessed in the future, past nor the unseen present, is unknowable knowledge that makes this assertion an Argument for Ignorance. Thus appeals to ignorance is in this case an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I have no idea what you are getting at. Or how it applies.

[seer]

God is the Creator in the process. Seer this has been discussed many, many times.

What does He actually do Shuny? What would be different if He was not involved?

[seer]

I never claimed to put my faith in fallible individual men concerning the reliability of science. I consider science reliable based on the reliable collective work of scientists using scientific methods, and the Law of non-contradiction. If that is what you consider the whole argument in a nutshell, nothing in the nutshell. The squirrels got it.

You completely missed my point - I start with God and His ability to cause men know truth. What do you start with Shuny?

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what you are getting at. Or how it applies.

Both Mr. Black and you appealed to limitations of science observing the past, future and unseen present, and the fallible nature of individual humans, to question the validity of science justifying the knowledge of science. By definition these assertions are fallacious by definition of the Argument for Ignorance.

[shunyadragon]

You completely missed my point - I start with God and His ability to cause men know truth. What do you start with Shuny?

Already answered this many times.

Starting with God is an assertion without an argument. I need more for a coherent argument.

Science has the track record of 100% of objective observations to stand on concerning the Law of non-contradiction, and the uniformity and consistency of our physical existence. Consensus among scientists worldwide on the basic theories of science and evolution is more then 95%. You do not have even 50% consensus among theologians and Christians.

Careful about appealing to unknowns again and again.

I think a more complete definition of the Argument from Ignorance is worth citing. Please note highlighted.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1.true
2.false
3.unknown between true or false
4.being unknowable (among the first three ).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

© Copyright Original Source

Appealing the lack of evidence of 'things' or 'evidence' not seen nor witnessed in the future, past nor the unseen present, is unknowable knowledge that makes this assertion an Argument for Ignorance. Thus appeals to ignorance is in this case an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[seer]

Already answered this many times.

Starting with God is an assertion without an argument. I need more for a coherent argument.

No Shuny, it is not an argument it is a presupposition - don't you know the difference?

Science has the track record of 100% of objective observations to stand on concerning the Law of non-contradiction, and the uniformity and consistency of our physical existence.

Careful about appealing to unknowns again and again.

I think a more complete definition of the Argument from Ignorance is worth citing. Please note highlighted.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that because the law of contradiction and the uniformity of nature have held in our limited experience that you know it is the case universally, and will be in the future? That is inductive reasoning, which can not offer such certainty. .

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, it is not an argument it is a presupposition - don't you know the difference?

Then back up the presupposition with something other then air.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that because the law of contradiction and the uniformity of nature have held in our limited experience that you know it is the case universally, and will be in the future? That is inductive reasoning, which can not offer such certainty. .

Again you are Appealing to Ignorance, and not responding to this issue. Can you read?

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1.true
2.false
3.unknown between true or false
4.being unknowable (among the first three ).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

© Copyright Original Source

Appealing the lack of evidence of 'things' or 'evidence' not seen nor witnessed in the future, past nor the unseen present, is unknowable knowledge that makes this assertion an Argument for Ignorance. Thus appeals to ignorance is in this case an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

By the evidence there is no reason to believe that the Law of non-contradiction, and the uniformity and consistency does not apply unless you can give a coherent argument without 'Appealing for Ignorance of unknowable unknowns.

[JimL]

No Jim, Mr. Black is not saying that one must adopt the Christian worldview to actually know anything but that knowledge acquisition only makes sense in the Christian model. And since we both do believe that we do in fact live in such a universe then knowledge is possible (at least to degrees). And to your last point - yes, we do hold Scripture in higher authority over the subjective, flawed process of human reasoning, that is infected with sin and bias.

Mr Blacks argument, his assertion, is basically that an eternal mind, an eternal intelligence, or what he likes to call an eternal ontic ground of intelligibility, must needs exist in order that temporal minds can come to exist. The problem is that he has no evidence at all that an eternal and supernatural mind, or the so called ontic ground of intelligibility, either exists, or that it is at all necessary for temporally existing minds, a.k.a. materially functioning brains, to evolve.
That argument could be made for everything in the universe as well as for the universe itself, because all that it implies is that nothing can exist unless the information defining that things nature and its functioning eternally pre-exists it, or in other words that it was created. Asserting the impossibility of the contrary is not a justification of that position.

[JimL]

No Jim, I mean there is an actual correct answer in any given situation. That is impossible in your worldview. So even if dietary laws were necessary under the Mosaic Civil code to distinguish the Hebrews from the surrounding Pagan tribes and are no longer presently required - those laws were objective and binding for those Hebrews. There was a correct answer - even if it was time sensitive. There could never be a correct answer in your worldview - time sensitive or otherwise. But again you and I have been over this before.

So, at one time it was necessary to distiguish Gods people from the pagans by their diet, but it no longer is necessary, and that is due to an objective and arbitrary decision made by God? Can you tell me when and to whom this change in the law was revealed?
A correct answer seer is dependent upon the result it brings, not dependent upon whether it is an ultimate and objective command. So, you can have a correct answer in my world view in any given situation even though it be subjective. And that is exactly the way you describe morality from the theistic perspective, accepting that you attribute the arbitrary nature of morals as being objective.

Right, and that is why in your world neither the Nazi or the Jewish are actually correct. That is why significance is a meaningless human construct.

No, you misunderstand. Explain if you would what you mean by "correct". Was it correct for the Jews to stone homosexuals, witches, and non-believers to death? Would you still have them stoned to death today? Which is "correct" and what do you mean by "correct"?

But as we have see your position is completely meaningless and idiotic.

So, if God does not exist, do you wish that you had never been born? Thats idiotic, not to mention ungrateful.

[Tassman]

Not quite Jim. The argument is that apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything (the impossible of the contrary argument).

...except that thanks to science, we demonstrably know considerably more than when Christianity dominated. So your assertion does not hold. The most obvious problem with Biblical inerrancy is that science has completely falsified it.

But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things. At least to degrees.

Nonsense! A 'bald assertion'!

And yes, since human minds are fallible, limited and rebellious

As compared to the postulated but unsubstantiated existence of your infallible, limitless deity presumably.

we do put the Word of God above human speculation or the discoveries of science.

Please explain, without begging the question, how come the “Word of God “is above" scientific enquiry and accumulated knowledge? E.g. do you affirm that Genesis 1-11 is as factual, as the rest of the Word of God?

[seer]

Then back up the presupposition with something other then air.

Really, then prove that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality. Then back it up with something more than assertion. Besides, that has already been explained to you by Mr. Black.

Again you are Appealing to Ignorance, and not responding to this issue. Can you read?

Appealing the lack of evidence of 'things' or 'evidence' not seen nor witnessed in the future, past nor the unseen present, is unknowable knowledge that makes this assertion an Argument for Ignorance. Thus appeals to ignorance is in this case an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

By the evidence there is no reason to believe that the Law of non-contradiction, and the uniformity and consistency does not apply unless you can give a coherent argument without 'Appealing for Ignorance of unknowable unknowns.

Nonsense, you are the one using an inductive argument. That because the uniformity of nature and the law of contradiction operate within our limited experience that they must be universal - past and future. So again Shuny, I will ask you how do you KNOW that?

And I'm still waiting Shuny - What did God actually do in the evolutionary process? What would be different if He was not involved?

[seer]

So, at one time it was necessary to distiguish Gods people from the pagans by their diet, but it no longer is necessary, and that is due to an objective and arbitrary decision made by God? Can you tell me when and to whom this change in the law was revealed?

Jim, I'm about to shut you off since you are lying about what I said. The dietary laws were not arbitrary, they were a necessary distinction for the Hebrews to practice. They were lifted in the New Testament as the Gospel was offered to all men, Jew and Gentile alike. There are however moral commands that transcend both testaments and are to be practiced by all men.

A correct answer seer is dependent upon the result it brings, not dependent upon whether it is an ultimate and objective command. So, you can have a correct answer in my world view in any given situation even though it be subjective. And that is exactly the way you describe morality from the theistic perspective, accepting that you attribute the arbitrary nature of morals as being objective.

Nonsense. What result? Who decides the result? You, me, Isis, the Communists? Biblical law is not arbitrary. And again, in any given moral situation, with the Biblical God there is a correct answer, there could never be a correct answer in your world view. No moral question ever has an objectively right answer.

No, you misunderstand. Explain if you would what you mean by "correct". Was it correct for the Jews to stone homosexuals, witches, and non-believers to death? Would you still have them stoned to death today? Which is "correct" and what do you mean by "correct"?

See Jim, your position is so absurd that you must appeal to this inane argument. Homosexual behavior and witchcraft are still immoral (i.e. sin) even if we no longer apply the death penalty. Christians are not under Mosaic Civil law.

So, if God does not exist, do you wish that you had never been born? Thats idiotic, not to mention ungrateful.

Ungrateful to whom? The non-rational forces of nature?

[seer]

Mr Blacks argument, his assertion, is basically that an eternal mind, an eternal intelligence, or what he likes to call an eternal ontic ground of intelligibility, must needs exist in order that temporal minds can come to exist. The problem is that he has no evidence at all that an eternal and supernatural mind, or the so called ontic ground of intelligibility, either exists, or that it is at all necessary for temporally existing minds, a.k.a. materially functioning brains, to evolve.
That argument could be made for everything in the universe as well as for the universe itself, because all that it implies is that nothing can exist unless the information defining that things nature and its functioning eternally pre-exists it, or in other words that it was created. Asserting the impossibility of the contrary is not a justification of that position.

I think Mr. Black has dealt with this on the Apologetic Board where you basically made the same point.

[shunyadragon]

Really, then prove that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality. Then back it up with something more than assertion. Besides, that has already been explained to you by Mr. Black.

Red is red regardless of whether your blind. You already answered the question many times before.

Nonsense, you are the one using an inductive argument. That because the uniformity of nature and the law of contradiction operate within our limited experience that they must be universal - past and future. So again Shuny, I will ask you how do you KNOW that?

Scientific arguments for the uniformity and consistency and confirming Law of non-contradiction are by definition Deductive arguments:

Source: http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

It's possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.

© Copyright Original Source

I never said it 'must' be universal. It is clearly demonstrated as universal, uniform and consistent by all available information. Regardless of whether the argument is inductive or deductive it still remains that you are arguing from Ignorance as defined previously when you demand proof of unknowable knowledge.

We know that by 100% observations confirming it.

And I'm still waiting Shuny - What did God actually do in the evolutionary process?

God Created life and humanity, and did what happened as observed by science in the abiogenesis and evolution of life and humanity.

What would be different if He was not involved?

There is possible evidence of two worlds one with God and one without to determine that.