Can we trust what God says?

[Mr. Black]

Samson killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.

Yes he did, but in terms of your worldview (that is, if your view of reality were true) in what reliable way could you come to know that (or any other) fact?

[NormATive]

"Any/all facts presuppose the biblical world view" "which means it doesn't just happen to be true, but is necessarily true" "So, the one true God who wrote the bible said it" "if you reject his revelation of himself to mankind you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity."
There is no logical argument there, there is nothing there but a string of unfounded assertions!

But, he is appealing to books written by men. We even know the names of these men. The Pentateuch is the only book said to be written by the "finger of G-d." Why doesn't Mr. Black follow the words actually written by G-d instead of those written by Matthew, Mark, John and Ringo?

NORM

[whag]

Yes he did, but in terms of your worldview (that is, if your view of reality were true) in what reliable way could you come to know that (or any other) fact?

I'd have to see him fend off 1,000 men, who presumably would be lined up single-file like in martial arts movies. Is that how you picture it, too?

[JimL]

I get the feeling you don't have much experience with transcendental arguments...




This demonstrates your lack of knowledge when it comes to transcendental arguments. I realize that that type of argument is a bit different than inductive and deductive arguments, and some uncomfortability can ensue when one is used. But its irrational to say that its therefore not an argument. What I've provided above is in fact an argument. You may not like the nature of the argument, but that does not make it a non-argument, nor does it make the argument go away.
Also, notice the straw man again, "there is nothing there but a string of unfounded assertions!" Any/all arguments contain assertions. But you mean to imply that the assertsions don't argue for a position, but they do. I explained this in my last comment. The argument is nothing like your straw man "The Bible says so therefore it is so", but rather "the one true God who wrote the Bible said it, and if you reject His revelation of Himself to mankind you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity." Saying that that's not an argument (and saying that you can't be wrong about everything you claim to know) necessarily amounts to saying not only that my argument is unsound, but that my worldview is false. That's an indirect knowledge claim, for which you now the burden of proof. We'll see this below.

There is a difference between an assertion and an argument, all you give is your assertion which is nothing more than an opinion or point of view. An argument is an assertion with sound reasoning to back it up. Anyone can make assertions!

How do you know that you had pasta for dinner?

Because, that is what we call what i had for dinner, we call it pasta. What did you have for dinner tonight? Do you know?

[Mr. Black]

But, he is appealing to books written by men. We even know the names of these men. The Pentateuch is the only book said to be written by the "finger of G-d." Why doesn't Mr. Black follow the words actually written by G-d instead of those written by Matthew, Mark, John and Ringo?

The NT does claim to be Scripture in various places, but this is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. Are you saying that if God were to write a message (or perhaps many messages), that He is so impotent and powerless that He cannot clearly make His authorship of those messages known, and therefore that the new addition is part of the previous canon, without saying, "Oh, and by the way, this is God"?

[Mr. Black]

I'd have to see him fend off...

How would you, in terms of your view of reality, know what your sensory organs are displaying information that comports with reality, and not illusion?

[whag]

How would you, in terms of your view of reality, know what your sensory organs are displaying information that comports with reality, and not illusion?

Why would I think that would be an illusion? It seems possible to me that 1 man could fight off 1,000 men piled on top of him. Spinach.

[Mr. Black]

There is a difference between an assertion and an argument

Yes there is. A good example of a mere assertion would be your straw man, "The Bible says so therefore it is so". A good example of an argument---particularly a transcendental argument--- would be "the one true God who wrote the Bible said it, and if you reject His revelation of Himself to mankind you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity."



[QUOTE=JimL;99662]Because, that is what we call what i had for dinner, we call it pasta.[QUOTE=JimL;99662]

How do you know that you ate what you call pasta for dinner?

What did you have for dinner tonight?

I haven't ate dinner yet.

Do you know?

Yes. How do I know? God's revelation of Himself. God created man, including man's sensory organs (Proverbs 20:12), and gave him the task of looking after the created order (Genesis 2:15), and gave him dominion over over all the other creatures on the earth (Genesis 1:28). That entails that not only man's sensory organs, but also his cognitive faculties, are reliable.

How do you know that your senses by which you justify your claim of eating pasta, and your cognitive faculties by which you go about reasoning through the act of logic of eating, are reliable? Also, how do you know that your memory of eating said pasta is reliable?

[Mr. Black]

Why would I think that would be an illusion? It seems possible to me that 1 man could fight off 1,000 men piled on top of him. Spinach.

So now you've replaced rhetoric with sarcasm?

[Mr. Black]

One can hold that the Scripture is infallible and true to the utmost, however, our interpretation of the Scripture is not.

Some things can be wrong in our interpretation, but most (especially the foundationals) is quite clear.

Therefore, we cannot castigate human reasoning as putting ourselves over and above the Scripture, but rather, we must utilize our God-given reasoning skills in the process of determining precisely how best to interpret the Scripture based upon a number of tools at our disposal.

If I understand you right, then I don't see any problem there. Reason is fine when used ministerially, as a tool for God's glory. After all, reason is one of God's many gifts to us. However, when man uses his reason in a magisterial way, then he's saying that man's mental deficiencies can hinder God's plan to reveal Himself to all men. So I think I agree with you if I understand you correctly. Reason is definitely a tool that's used in the process of interpretation, but our knowledge that the Bible is God's Word does not depend on our reason (i.e., its truth claims don't have to pass the test of man's reason before man can know that God's Word as a whole, whatever details we discover written it it thereafter, is true). It's immediate, rather than mediate, knowledge, meaning it's known to be God's Word without discursive reasoning on our part, even though we then read further and use our reasoning as a tool by which God conveys the content of His message to us.

I think what I was attempting to highlight is that if one utilizes a strictly presuppostional approach, then they may never be aware that they are defending a falsehood. There would be no way to objectively anchor or confirm their presupposition(s) as true to reality.

I'm not sure why you would come to this conclusion. We have epistemic certainty that the biblical worldview is true because God has made us to know that it's true. God can (and does) grant epistemic certainty as to the truthfulness of the overall paradigm of reality that's articulated in His Word, which means I know that everything the Bible teaches is true, even if some of the minor, non-foundational details are still kinda fuzzy, so I'm not sure what God teaches there.
If you don't mind my asking, what do you mean by "presupposition" here?

Thankfully God has given us an event to which the Scripture attests, and to which history can be called forth to confirm - the resurrection of Christ:

And that's a beautiful truth that I'm not worthy of knowing about.
But the resurrection, beautiful as it is, doesn't prove the Christian worldview. It doesn't even prove that Christ is the Son of God. At best it proves that a man came back from the dead three days after His death. To the Jews, who accepted the one true God (i.e., did not suppress their knowledge of Him) this was clear proof that Jesus was the Messiah, prophesied about in their own Scriptures. But to the Gentiles it was absurd nonsense. Notice that when Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 2, He started pretty much the resurrection---because they were Jews. They spent their lives reading the sacred Scriptures which prophesied about Messiah, and they professed a worldview in which the fact of the resurrection can make sense. But when Paul spoke to the Athenian philosophers in Athens (Acts 17), who did not have a worldview that could make sense of the resurrection, he went the opposite direction, targeting their underlying assumptions. He began by analyzing the worldview of his opponents (verses 22-23) which is always an important step when one is about to perform an internal critique. He noted that they worshiped an "unknown God", and used it as an example of their suppressed knowledge of the one True God, going back to creation and building a rational foundation (or, if you will, articulating the Christian worldview, and its distinctive metaphysic) in which the resurrection could make sense. In verse 28, Paul moved back to his internal critique by pointing out that in God we live and move and exist, the knowledge of which the Athenians betrayed in their own engraved altar, and even in their own poetry. But which worldview can make sense of that fact? Not a worldview in which the gods are made of "gold, silver, or stone", as Paul put it, but rather a worldview wherein the one true God, whom all the Athenians had known their whole lives, created and sustains, and holds them accountable for having known Him, yet denying Him and breaking His law.

God, in His wisdom, has furnished proof of this event that can be fact-checked using the methods of historical investigation.

While there's nothing wrong with looking into the details of that glorious event, there are a couple problems here.
1.) All evidence is interpreted according to one's worldview, and the resurrection is no exception. As I already noted above, the non-christian will take the fact of the resurrection and reinterpret it to fit their worldview, appealing to the idea that perhaps the laws of physics are not always constant, and perhaps fluctuate slightly at times, or perhaps that there's a naturalistic explanation to be found in the future. "After all", they'll say, "We don't know everything about the universe. Who's to say that there's not a perfectly naturalistic explanation for it?" The resurrection is certainly proof for the Christian worldview, because all men know the God who raised Christ from the dead. For one who espouses the biblical worldview, the resurrection can be nothing but proof. But when men deny knowing that God and espouse a different worldview, they give that fact an alternate interpretation, an interpretation that fits their worldview. In a rational discussion wherein our interpretation of the resurrection is in question, it will do no good to simply present our interpretation of it. It proves nothing and begs the question.
2.) The evidentialist method, though well-intentioned, ends up being somewhat elitist, as all Christians are commanded to give a defense to every man who asks a reason for the hope within, but not all people have access to scientific tools and studies, and not all people have the time nor the energy to read enough books, and study enough material, to be able to answer any objection a non-christian brings. Thus on the evidentialist approach, no Christian can fulfill their duty laid down in 1 Peter 3:15.
Whereas with the presuppositional approach, its a matter of recognizing that (1) the fear of the Lord is the beginning (not the end result) of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), and all knowledge is in Christ (Colossians 2:3), and those who have a philosophy of life that's rooted in the "elementary principles of the world" rather than "in Christ" will end up being robbed of those treasures (Colossians 2:8). So (2) one needs to realize that, no matter what form an objection takes (whether its scientific, historical, logical, etc), its going to appeal to, and depend upon, one or more of the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc). Every objection assumes one or more of those, which the Bible says only God can account for. So with presupp, a Christian can acknowledge that it all boils down to one or more of those issues, and then master those issues. And the result is a rock solid argument that glorifies God, obeys His command to not put Him to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16, reiterated by Jesus in Luke 4:12), which allows us to actually fulfill God's command in 1 Peter 3:15, and provides a conclusion that's certain. Whereas with evidentialism, there's a lot more work, God get's put on trial (the unbeliever is allowed to place God "in the dock", as C.S. Lewis put it, in order to stand as judge and jury over Him), and at best a probable conclusion (or at least a conclusion that's said to be probable, but I don't believe that can be demonstrated).

I don't necessarily think this will convince a skeptic,

I agree. God is clear in Romans 1:18-22 that all men know God in their heart of hearts already, and suppress that truth in unrighteousness, and that they're without excuse for denying Him. One cannot convince someone of what he already knows to be true. Apologetics is not a matter of convincing non-christians that God exists. It's about stripping them of their excuses for denying the God that they suppress their knowledge of, or, as Paul put it, "destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God," and "taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ". I never forgot Paul's contrast between the "speculations" against God, and "knowledge" of Him. :)

but it surely can provide assurance as to the veracity of the claim for the believer.

I agree. There's nothing wrong with Christians, who already accept God's authority, looking at the evidence and being comforted by it, so long as they're not questioning the authority and accuracy of God's Word. But if I were to be asked for a reason for the hope within me by a non-christian, and I appeal to evidence, then I've claimed that the testimony of human "experts" or our reasoning about the empirical evidence is a higher epistemological authority than God's testimony---which would directly contradict Hebrews 6:13 & Ephesians 1:21.

I don't think we should reject that evidentialist approach.

I disagree, as the evidentialist approach says that the Bible is to be accepted, not based on God's own testimony, but rather based on the testimony of external evidence, thereby saying that evidence has authority in the debate until its independently established that Christ was correct, and then, after that He has authority in the debate. Jesus disagreed, "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18).

Ministerial use of evidence (simply ministering to God's truth, showing that there's a way to interpret the evidence in a way that comports with God's Word) is fine, but magisterial use of evidence (placing God in the dock so that men can stand in judgment over the veracity of His Word, and therefore over the authority and trustworthiness of the God Who wrote it, the God they already know exists) is sinful (though most often unwittingly).

[Mr. Black]

How did I miss this one?

Even if the Biblical word-view were 100% accurate, it would still be necessary to show that Mr Black (or anyone else) has correctly interpreted the Bible. In light of physical evidence available, if Mr Black's interpretation of the Bible were accurate, the Bible would be wrong.

If by "my interpretation" of the Bible, you mean the view I've presented thus far (the one true God providing an ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility, and an epistemology which makes Him known) then please note that my argument here doubles as an argument for my so-called "interpretation"---meaning you couldn't make sense out of that claim you just made if my "interpretation" were not true.
If you wanna disagree I'd love to have that discussion with you.

[whag]

So now you've replaced rhetoric with sarcasm?

Well I already asked you how you picture the fracas went down, and you refused to answer. So, yes, sarcasm.

[whag]

I was talking to my wife who is christian about OT characters she liked the least. She said the one character she dislikes is Samson. I agreed with her.

To some Jews and christians, Samson is believed to have actually accomplished amazing physical feats with supernatural support. Granting those feats to be legendary exaggeration (which my wife does), if those Hulkish moments are stripped away, would Samson look like a model of faith? I can tell that concocted sentiment bugs her because now she doesn't know how to regard the passage (because Samson is dumb but granted inexplicable extraordinary power).

I would like to have seen more measured Deborah get the powers. How much more interesting would that have been?

[shunyadragon]

How would you, in terms of your view of reality, know what your sensory organs are displaying information that comports with reality, and not illusion?

From any perspective everyone must ask the same question, which no one can answer in the absolute sense. It is basically a meaningless question, unless you are a Hindu, then all existence is an illusion.

[JimL]

Yes there is. A good example of a mere assertion would be your straw man, "The Bible says so therefore it is so".

Well, like it or not, that is your argument in a nutshell.

A good example of an argument---particularly a transcendental argument--- would be "the one true God who wrote the Bible said it,

Unfounded assertion.

and if you reject His revelation of Himself to mankind you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity."

Unfounded assertion.

You merely assert that if one does not believe in God and the Bible that their world view is absurd. Explain why you believe a Godless world view is absurd and in what way it differs from a world view grounded in a Creator. Give a reasoned example if you are able please.

How do you know that you ate what you call pasta for dinner?

Are you completely nuts? I just told you that, i live in a world in which exists this food which we have given the name pasta and i empirically observed and experienced the sensation of eating it. Thats how i know.

I haven't ate dinner yet.

How do you know you haven't eaten yet?

Yes. How do I know? God's revelation of Himself. God created man, including man's sensory organs (Proverbs 20:12), and gave him the task of looking after the created order (Genesis 2:15), and gave him dominion over over all the other creatures on the earth (Genesis 1:28). That entails that not only man's sensory organs, but also his cognitive faculties, are reliable.

There you go with your unfounded assertions again. Explain what you mean by your "sensory organs and cognitive faculties being reliable". Explain, without the use of mere assertion, why they can only be reliable if they are creations of God.

How do you know that your senses by which you justify your claim of eating pasta, and your cognitive faculties by which you go about reasoning through the act of logic of eating, are reliable? Also, how do you know that your memory of eating said pasta is reliable?

Because they are dependably consistent brother, and consistency isn't dependent upon a God. Although one could assert that to be the case!