Presuppositional Apolgetic

[Cerebrum123]

I did not know that this was a debating room between theist and atheism of different worldviews. I thought it was a Christian only section so that's why I asked the question I did in the OP.

snip

This section is for anyone to join in, and engage in arguments for/against various apologetics. Each area on the site has a description and lists who can and can't post, as well as what the topic is limited to. If you haven't posted in an area before, take a look at the description to see if what you are posting(or whether you can post there at all) belongs there. If you don't know where to post something new, then it would be a good idea to ask a moderator. Green's and oranges are probably best for that.

Here is a link to the guidelines for this area.

[AkByR64]

Failure to respond. The concept of 'not knowing' is in terms of 'absolute knowing.' This is repeat a number of times. Do you understand the English language?

Pythagoras gave the appropriate response to the fallacy of your argument; Argument from Ignorance fallacy

There is no argument from ignorance fallacy. I don't argue from what I don't know. I argue from what I know. And all of what I know points to God. You do not know but you cannot admit God did it. I find that quite comical.

You are still misrepresenting science, and selectively using science to justify a religious agenda.

Case not closed!!

Because I can. I'm a Christian. I do not argue for atheism or naturalism.

If you wish to continue, please represent science as science, and do not cherry pick to justify you religious agenda.

See, that's begging the question right there. Using science as science.. who made that rule though?

[shunyadragon]

There is no argument from ignorance fallacy. I don't argue from what I don't know. I argue from what I know. And all of what I know points to God. You do not know but you cannot admit God did it. I find that quite comical.

Nonetheless, what you described above and in previous posts is the 'Fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance' as Pythagoras accurately described.

Source: https://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 in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

© Copyright Original Source

Because I can. I'm a Christian. I do not argue for atheism or naturalism.



See, that's begging the question right there. Using science as science.. who made that rule though?

Who made up the rule. No one. It is a fundamental principle of Methodological Naturalism, science is science, independent of religion. Not begging the question.

I am a Baha'i, I believe in God, and most definitely not an atheist nor materialist. Your misusing and misrepresenting science for your own religious agenda. Just because you claim to be a Christian does not justify the abuse of science.

[AkByR64]

Nonetheless, what you described above and in previous posts is the 'Fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance' as Pythagoras accurately described.

Source: https://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 in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

© Copyright Original Source

The answer is known.

If we have only 2 propositions and one of them is negated then the other one has to be true.

Take theism vs atheism. Either God exist or God does not exist. It cannot be both. Sure it can unknown but that's not helping the argument. If you don't know how can you claim it isn't God? In order to make the claim, you have to know what that third option is.

Who made up the rule. No one. It is a fundamental principle of Methodological Naturalism, science is science, independent of religion. Not begging the question.

Yes, man made.

I am a Baha'i, I believe in God, and most definitely not an atheist nor materialist. Your misusing and misrepresenting science for your own religious agenda. Just because you claim to be a Christian does not justify the abuse of science.

Well no, not necessarily since many scientists are religious. What it does mean is that they are not to assume that something has a miraculous explanation to begin with.

You said you believe in God, but if you understand the nature of science, and looking from a naturalistic point of view, you would rule out all gods on earth. Why have't you done so?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I did not know that this was a debating room between theist and atheism of different worldviews. I thought it was a Christian only section so that's why I asked the question I did in the OP.

I didn't mean that first part as an invitation to debate. I really was curious as to your reason for interest in Presuppositional Apologetics. If your reason is Evangelical, then I offered some advice. If it's not Evangelical, then my advice is superfluous, and please ignore it.

If time has always existed for eternity, we'd all be in heat death right now..as there wouldn't be any usable energy left in the universe.

The problem of Thermodynamic Equilibrium is one with which all past-eternal models of cosmology are intimately familiar. These models provide answers to that problem in a number of different ways.

And we wouldn't have got to the point where we are are now also as that would take an infinite amount of time to get here. If you believe time is infinite then you would reduce yourself to absurdity.

Only if you reject the past 150 years of mathematical advance. The consensus of mathematicians and philosophers for the past century is that the Problem of Infinite Regress is resolved by Cantorian Set Theory and Axiomatics.

Not true. That would actually support the Kalam Cosmological Argument because the argument posited a defensible first cause.

How can a thing which has never been non-existent have been caused to exist? If Time is past-finite, and Time is a part of the physical universe, then the physical universe has existed for all Time.

Nothing existed before the big bang and universe. The big bang theory postulates the origin of space. Matter cannot exist without space. There was no matter prior to the origin of the universe. Matter came into being at the beginning instant. It was the beginning of space and time. That is why a supernatural cause is needed to explain it...because it is the beginning of the universe out of nothing.

The phrases "before the universe" and "prior to the origin of the universe" are entirely nonsensical. There is no such thing as "before the universe" and "prior to the origin of the universe," whether you believe Time to be past-finite or past-infinite. Asking what came "before the universe" is precisely the same thing as asking what exists North of the North Pole.

Anything or anywhere outside of the singularity is outside this known universe.

I don't think you understand what a Singularity is. The Big Bang Singularity is a particular region of space-time. There are plenty of things "outside of the singularity" which are nonetheless in this universe. In fact, mathematically speaking, almost everything in this universe is "outside of the singularity."

...because all pre big bang theories are actually metaphysical speculation about things outside the known universe.

Actually, cosmological models which posit regions of time prior to the Big Bang are physical speculation. Not metaphysical speculation. And the scientists which formulate these models admit them to be such.

The answer IS God. Better than " I don't know".

What makes it better?

I don't know is ignorance. Some of you guys are saying you don't know, but want to assume that means 'no god'.

That's not what we are saying. If we were, I'd be the first person to chastise people for making such an Argument from Ignorance. What we are saying is, "What evidence have you got to support your claim besides the fact that no answer is known?"

[AkByR64]

These preconditions preclude any possible dialogue of alternatives other then what you unconditionally believe as an anecdotal claim based on faith.

What's the alternative explanation for this?

This an anecdotal claim on your part, and not based on science. The contemporary view of science is that space/time is not eternal, but the nature of universes in the greater cosmos.

Science and deductive method that is used in the argument but generally it tends to be more on the philosophical side. You cannot have an infinite past because the law of entropy undercut this line of argument. Information and order tends to be lost overtime so far as has been observed. Entropy in my understanding is simply having everything moving toward disorder, headed toward maximum coolness, loss of useable heat and ultimate disorder.. eventually leading to a heat death universe.

Science does not propose 'two ways.' The 'first cause' for materialists is simply the greater Quantum Cosmos from which all possible universe are born and die, and of course, the Philosophical Naturalist belief that there are no god(s). From the Methodological Naturalism perspective this is the most likely the physical nature of the Greater Cosmos, but there is no assumption nor conclusions as to the existence of god(s) beyond the physical cosmos.

What is this greater quantum cosmos your referring to? Is it another universe?

This is a theological claim, and not based on the science of physics and cosmology.

No it is not a theological claim. The big bang support this notion as well. Again your only showing that science contradict itself.

[The1islooking]

I only showed you what you needed to see. lol. Whether you accept this or not is up to you.:

-God

[shunyadragon]

What's the alternative explanation for this?

No absolute presuppositions from the fallible human perspective.

Science and deductive method that is used in the argument but generally it tends to be more on the philosophical side.

Confusing and not meaningful?!?!

You cannot have an infinite past because the law of entropy undercut this line of argument.

Science does not claim an infinite past.

Information and order tends to be lost overtime so far as has been observed. Entropy in my understanding is simply having everything moving toward disorder, headed toward maximum coolness, loss of useable heat and ultimate disorder.. eventually leading to a heat death universe.

Old Newtonian View of entropy assuming the universe is a closed system. We have no evidence this is the case. Modern physics and Cosmology view. The universe will eventually disapate to Quantum ground state in the Greater Cosmos.

What is this greater quantum cosmos your referring to? Is it another universe?

No, the Greater Cosmos that contains our universe and all possible universes. Singularities may form d to Quantum Gravity, and chaotic unstable conditions in the Greater Cosmos.

No it is not a theological claim. The big bang support this notion as well. Again your only showing that science contradict itself.

No contradiction. Your claim is a theological claim based on presuppositional apologetics and selective misuse of science. The Big Bang is not a notion, and it is not evidence f.or an absolute beginning

[shunyadragon]

The answer is known.

No your answer is not known. It is based on your anecdotal claim of presuppositional apologetics.

It remains that your line of reasoning about what is 'not known' is the 'Fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance' as defined by Logic. Pythagoras also noted your use of this fallacy.

If we have only 2 propositions and one of them is negated then the other one has to be true.

Take theism vs atheism. Either God exist or God does not exist. It cannot be both. Sure it can unknown but that's not helping the argument. If you don't know how can you claim it isn't God? In order to make the claim, you have to know what that third option is.

This is an assertion on your part, and no there are other options. I am a theist, and do not hold to your narrow thinking of presuppositional apologetics, which believes there are no other possible answers but your own.

Yes, man made.

It is apparent here that you reject science and selectively misuse science to justify your presuppositional world view.

Well no, not necessarily since many scientists are religious. What it does mean is that they are not to assume that something has a miraculous explanation to begin with?

It means the believe in miraculous explanations for some things outside science, and there are more possible explanations than your arrogant claim of only one, your's

You said you believe in God, but if you understand the nature of science, and looking from a naturalistic point of view, you would rule out all gods on earth. Why have't you done so?

The Methodological Naturalism does not preclude the existence of Gods or a spiritual realm beyond the physical. It deals with nature of our physical existence only.

I believe science does reveal the nature of God's Creation as it is and not how any one person, church or religion wants it to be.

[Yttrium]

Science and deductive method that is used in the argument but generally it tends to be more on the philosophical side. You cannot have an infinite past because the law of entropy undercut this line of argument. Information and order tends to be lost overtime so far as has been observed. Entropy in my understanding is simply having everything moving toward disorder, headed toward maximum coolness, loss of useable heat and ultimate disorder.. eventually leading to a heat death universe.

This assumes that the universe is a closed system. If the known universe is an open system (capable of receiving energy from outside sources), then this is not necessarily the case.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Science and deductive method that is used in the argument but generally it tends to be more on the philosophical side. You cannot have an infinite past because the law of entropy undercut this line of argument.

As I have mentioned, past-infinite cosmological models give answers to the problem of Entropy.

Entropy in my understanding is simply having everything moving toward disorder, headed toward maximum coolness, loss of useable heat and ultimate disorder..

Your understanding of entropy is very wrong. It's a common misconception, but it's not what physicists mean by "entropy."

[The1islooking]

1. Faith is the substance of our confidence. Faith is used in understanding our universe on both sides (natural and spiritual). God put faith as a catalyst for humans to come to know Him. He is the creator of the world and of faith. Our faith (Spiritual) is not a blind faith (natural), it is the most realistic option available. Let me take a minute to explain this in conjunction with Romans 1. As Paul states we see the world around us and observe. This is science, and this is all that science will ever be, an observation. No conclusions can be made until all information avail to us has been observed. This would mean for science to come to a scientific conclusion it would have to take into account everything from a (quark, unless there is something smaller not yet known) to the entire Universe. This is an unrealistic objective thus a preposterous presumption, or faith (natural). This is consciousness, this is the first step in "knowing" objectively, this is reason, this is the "likeness" of God.

2. Morality: this is where we proceed further than science can take us. It is not objectively based it is subjectively based. It is the Image of God. But this is not presumed, unless you are not spiritual, and thus does not pertain to your question.

[AkByR64]

This assumes that the universe is a closed system. If the known universe is an open system (capable of receiving energy from outside sources), then this is not necessarily the case.

The universe is not an open system. if they want to say that it is, they need to back that up.. by stating an energy source outside of the universe supplying it with energy. If they cant do that, then the closed system stands. And they would further have to show that an energy source outside the known universe is not simply...God.

Any energy source outside the known universe..which again..in some form of speculative theories propose in some form or another..could well be God Himself. Obvously God...being God..has access to infinite energy, that's not disputed.

And even if they can show that ..that energy that God created, was used somehow to start the big bang process, how is that any different than saying 'God did it'?

[Yttrium]

The universe is not an open system. if they want to say that it is, they need to back that up.. by stating an energy source outside of the universe supplying it with energy. If they cant do that, then the closed system stands. And they would further have to show that an energy source outside the known universe is not simply...God.

Actually, "they" generally say that it's a probably a closed system. I think they're probably right about that. But how can we know that for sure? Someone else could insist that it's an open universe and demand that you back up your assertion that it's closed. And how would you go about backing up your conclusion? Why is the burden of proof only on the other side?

And then you bring up God, which would be a source of outside energy, establishing an open universe. If you believe in God, I don't see how you can claim that the universe is closed.

[shunyadragon]

Actually, "they" generally say that it's a probably a closed system. I think they're probably right about that. But how can we know that for sure? Someone else could insist that it's an open universe and demand that you back up your assertion that it's closed. And how would you go about backing up your conclusion? Why is the burden of proof only on the other side?

And then you bring up God, which would be a source of outside energy, establishing an open universe. If you believe in God, I don't see how you can claim that the universe is closed.

Who is "they"?