Friday, February 20, 2009

Interesting threads from two atheists

Reynold said, "Explain how you could tell a "just God" from an "unjust God" using your criterion of him being able to do whatever he wants."

Speaking of an unjust god would be irrelevant because the true God is not unjust, the reason the true God is not unjust...is because God defines what is just by who He is. The definition of what is just is defined by who God is. A just God is one who will judge righteously (Job 29:14), a just God is one who is holy, one who is sovereign, all-knowing, supreme, one that is not perverted (Job 8:3-4; 34:12), one who is omniscient. And the only way that you, Reynold, can account for what is just and what is not just is by borrowing from the biblical worldview in order to make sense of your own.

Reynold, how do you account for what is just and what is not just? I'll use the words of Blamster in response to you, "Reynold...Supply us with a worldview that does not borrow from ours....where do you get your sense of right and wrong? Or are you simply saying that we must gather the good out of every system of logic and epistemology to draw our standards? But who decided this was right to do, and how do you justify that all religions contradict one another? It may help to see what questions your logic and worldview beg. What are the necessary underpinnings for your worldview to make sense? What transcendental truths are you assuming in your thought process and why? Why? I really would like an answer to these questions."

Logic Lad said, "final question, why does religion always seem to fall back on threats and fear to try and make it's points? I appreciate that you think that the way i love will condemn me, but given i don;t beleive in your place of punishment the threat of it is unlikely to have much effect. You may think me arrogantto take such a stance, however i would argue i show no more hubris than the person who insists they know the truth of what happens after we die with no evidence to back it up."

Logic Lad, fear is not a bad thing. Don't you fear gravity? I hope you do! This fear causes you to think twice about jumping off a high tower. The fear of gravity keeps you on the ground. In the same way, the fear of God should cause you to depart from evil. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov 1:7). But because you do not fear the Lord, you are not wise. You might be wise in your own eyes but you do not possess enough wisdom to cause you to depart from your evil deeds (Romans 1:22). I'm not sure about what other "religions" you are referring to, that "fall back on threats and fear to try to makes it's points", but I know that the warning from the bible is clear: "Repent or perish" (Luke 13:3, 5; Matt 4:17). There is plenty of evidence to back the truth of God's existence. The creation clearly reveals that there is a Creator. But you have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:21-22) and according to the bible, your heart has been darkened. But there is still hope while you have your breath, I plead with you to repent (turn from your sins) and put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Depart from your darkened thinking and Christ will translate you from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light (1 Peter 2:9). He is able to save you from eternal damnation. And don't forget, just because you don't believe in something (namely Hell) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Absolute truth exists.

44 comments:

emram said...

Logic Lad,

Reynold is begging too many questions to list but if you would like, he begs the questions of universal morality, logic, meaning and arbitrarily superimposes these presuppositions upon everyone else without acknowledging that he has assumed a certain 'standard' of ethics, morals etc. without first establishing where morals and any sense of right and wrong come from.

Are they universal? Is logic universal? Is logic a convention? Are the laws of logic relevant or irrelevant? All of these types of things are aspects of epistemology, but Reynold has yet to define where these aspects of intelligibility come from. Do they just exist because they are self evident? Why are they self evident, etc. etc.?

If he believes morals, logic, meaning are relative abstract entities, then why suppose that anyone should subscribe to his standard of those things. I don't think, given his atheist worldview, can he can account for these things without first subscribing to the types of things that are explainable only in the Christian worldview.

On last point, I define right and wrong by thinking the thoughts of God after Him. If you are wondering as to how I am aware of the thinking of God, He has revealed His thoughts in the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Scriptures. The answer is simple, consistent, yet it may not be palatable to an atheist given his worldview which does not allow for such a God. At least my "definition" of how to define what is right and wrong provides me with an infinite reference point by which an objective, universal, truth claim can be made; a reference point...I do not believe an atheist can provide.

Reynold said...

Speaking of an unjust god would be irrelevant because the true God is not unjust, the reason the true God is not unjust...is because God defines what is just by who He is.
What does that even mean? If any one defines "justness" by that way, then it'd be impossible for anyone else to say that something is "unjust". For example:

Hitler defined what is just by who he is and what he does. How would one show that he is "unjust"?

If your god advocated child killing in the OT which he does, then you'd have to say that's just.


The definition of what is just is defined by who God is.
What if your god was a child-killer? According to the OT he is. Is that just?

A just God is one who will judge righteously (Job 29:14), a just God is one who is holy
Define "holy" please.

, one who is sovereign, all-knowing, supreme, one that is not perverted (Job 8:3-4; 34:12),
he has pregnant women and children killed, and in other places, he has his "chosen people" take virgin midianite women as slaves. Sounds vaguely perveted to me.

one who is omniscient.
Never mind the many scientific mistakes in the bible...for example the mustard seed is said to be the "least" of all seeds, and the don't grow into "trees" as the bible says.

And the only way that you, Reynold, can account for what is just and what is not just is by borrowing from the biblical worldview in order to make sense of your own.
Not only without evidence, but is baloney besides. Humanity has been around far longer than the bible claims, and in order for that to have happened, we'd have had to develop various moral codes to help us get along back then. We developed our moral code from many places; the Sumerians for one, Greeks, etc.

In reality, we didn't get all that much from the bible that previous cultures didn't already have.

For instance, the ancient Isrealites were not the first people to keep slaves or have rules on how to treat them. Other groups have had that before them.


Too bad that the bible doesn't say anything about slavery being wrong; otherwise you people would be able to take credit for the abolition of slavery. Not that it doesn't stop some of you from trying...


How does one account for what is and is not just? Empathy, consequences, and whatever rules helps the people in society get along while treating each other fairly. As circumstances change, the rules and ethics change, but at least secularists don't rely on some book that proscribes child murder by some god as "just".

Your "reference" point isn't very consistent as history shows...the rules of the bible themselves have changed over time as circumstances have changed. For instance, it's no longer permissible to kill the babies and pregnant women of people who tick you off, now is it?

For some reading which I know you won't bother with:
The Biology of Morality: Human Development and Moral Neuroscience by
Melanie Killena, Judith Smetanab


An interesting site is the historyofethics dot org.

Meh, that's enough for now.

Robert Wictorzon said...

"[...] the true God is not unjust, the reason the true God is not unjust...is because God defines what is just by who He is."

Those are your rules. You decide how your God is just.

"A just God is one who will judge righteously"

Or, in other words: A just God is one who is just. Makes sense. But then again, who decides if God is just (and therefor is a just God)?

"[...] a just God is one who is holy, one who is sovereign, all-knowing, supreme, one that is not perverted"

Not perverted. Ok. What is perverted? You must have that defined BEFORE you can decide if your God is that or not.

Reynold said...

Are they universal? Is logic universal? Is logic a convention?
Conventions devised by man.

Are the laws of logic relevant or irrelevant?
To what? Helping us make sense of the world around us, I'd say that they're relevent. Given their usage throughout history I'm not the only one who'd see the rules of logic being useful for that.

All of these types of things are aspects of epistemology, but Reynold has yet to define where these aspects of intelligibility come from.
Take a logic or philosophy course. Or you could do some reading on stephenlaw dot blogspot dot com.

He's an actual philosopher who would be able to answer your questions.

Why is it you have trouble when I have to define where "these aspects of intelligibility come from" but you have no problem with some other being (your "god") doing the same?


By the way, don't blindly assume that your religion is the only place where logic can be found. For one thing, the Greeks enumerated the laws of logic, the bible does not. If it does, please list the appropriate bible verses along with the logic rule it applies to.

And you say I beg the question?

By the way, since you care so much about logic, don't you think it'd have been logical to respond to logic lad's question in the same posting where he asked the question???


Do they just exist because they are self evident? Why are they self evident, etc. etc.?
From what I know, it's because they're evident enough that the greeks and other ancient people have been able to figure out or devise the rules of logic well before your religion did.

If he believes morals, logic, meaning are relative abstract entities, then why suppose that anyone should subscribe to his standard of those things.
Do you assume that I'm the only one one the planet who thinks that way?

As for why should anyone subscribe to them, well, I guess helping people get along in society doesn't mean much to you?

I don't think, given his atheist worldview, can he can account for these things without first subscribing to the types of things that are explainable only in the Christian worldview.
What arrogance to think that it's only your religion that has those ideas. Morals, logic, and meaning have been examined by many people before your religion ever came along, and by people in other parts of the world that your religion hadn't gotten to yet when they were pondering those things.

Greeks for instance?

On last point, I define right and wrong by thinking the thoughts of God after Him.
So no matter what "God" says, you'll go along and say it's "right". Kind of arbitrary, don't you think?

What does "God" use as a standard of morality then? In the OT in many instances "God" said to kill pregnant women and babies. How do you feel about those actions by themselves in those times? What about those actions now? What's changed since then?


Most people know that in those days it was a brutal, hardscrabble existence. People had to be ruthless to survive. However, with a "loving god" around, it would easily have been different. Remember that "manna" from heaven that he supposedly provided? In real life, a god who loved his creation would have helped his people to provide for the orphans and widows left behind after the Isrealite purges. They did kill off all the menfolk after all.

Instead, he has them killed.

If you are wondering as to how I am aware of the thinking of God, He has revealed His thoughts in the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Scriptures. The answer is simple, consistent, yet it may not be palatable to an atheist given his worldview which does not allow for such a God.
Consistent? From the OT to the NT? You must be joking. In the OT for instance, lepers, cripples, or handicapped people weren't allowed in the temple. In the NT Jesus himself allegedly touched them.

Another example of consistency, how many times does Jesus have people kill off pregnant women and children?

Times change, and morals oftentimes change with them. The bible gives many good examples of that.

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold.

First, "Hello again," from your old friend at Atheist Central.

Reynold, you obviously have a strong sense of morality, which you project upon God as though He were a mere mortal subject to a standard higher than Himself.

I was just wondering, Reynold; do you ever find yourself to be in violation of your own moral standard?

Craig Boyd

Reynold said...

Hi.

Reynold, you obviously have a strong sense of morality, which you project upon God as though He were a mere mortal subject to a standard higher than Himself.
Wrong. I'm just holding him to the same standard that we are expected to. What about you people when you go and claim that he's "just" or "holy" etc? What standards do you use? So far what I've seen is stuff like Javier's "God doing whatever he wants is moral" (from his blog) or the equivalent.

What kind of standard is that??

Bottom line, if you have a being who does any action that, if a human did it, would be judged "sinful", yet when this being does it it is not counted as sinful, that does not mean that this being is "righteous", it just means that bad things he does is ignored.

Many times when this being of yours does something that people consider "good", it is used as an example of the "goodness" of this being.

Either way, people are still "judging" this being, it's just that the judgement is all one-sided.

That's not consistent.

You people talk on and on about how "good" your "God" is, yet the bible itself refutes that completely. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

I was just wondering, Reynold; do you ever find yourself to be in violation of your own moral standard?
Yes, but not near to the extent that your diety is. I at least try...

Reynold said...

What I'm trying to say is this: If he's not held to the same standards he holds to us, then what standards is he held to and how do we know that he even tries to live up to his own?

Certainly by any standards that we can measure, he's not very consistent or moral.

What's left?

stranger.strange.land said...

But Reynold, I'm sure that you recognise that parents do have prerogatives that the children do not have. How much more the eternal Creator than those who are created by Him.

Craig B.

emram said...

Are they universal? Is logic universal? Is logic a convention?

"Conventions devised by man."

Reynold, thanks for response, but I hate to tell you that you have hardly responded to anything. But I guess given your worldview you cant response in a positive way about much. It is one thing to point to the Greek philosophers of old, it is another thing to tell us where they were right and to what system or school of philosophy do you subscribe to. Quoting ancient philosopher or modern ones and saying that evidence that other people where thinking about these types of things is somehow relevant to what I was positing is to skirt the issue.

But as far as the laws of logic being a convention devised by man, then this would just beg the question further, by what standard should we adhere to those conventions, if they are relative then why adhere to them, again given your worldview, you have no real answer for this, you have an opinion, a suggestion, or even a hypothesis, but real answer because you have no transcendent reference point.

"Are the laws of logic relevant or irrelevant?/ To what? Helping us make sense of the world around us, I'd say that they're relevent. Given their usage throughout history I'm not the only one who'd see the rules of logic being useful for that."

Your response simply shows that you have not understood the question being put to you or that you are simply unable to answer it. I know that the laws of logic have been used by others in history but this is still not answering any of real questions at hand, in other words I know people use logic, given your atheist worldview, I am asserting that you cannot account for why you do so.

"Why is it you have trouble when I have to define where "these aspects of intelligibility come from" but you have no problem with some other being (your "god") doing the same?"

Your comments here make little or no sense at all. If you are saying that God has not answered these questions for us, He has, in Scripture.

Scripture is our answer as to why the world runs as it does. You may not like the answer but it is an answer nonetheless and unless you can disproof God’s written account all you have done is simply complained about it.

You said, By the way, don't blindly assume that your religion is the only place where logic can be found. For one thing, the Greeks enumerated the laws of logic, the bible does not. If it does, please list the appropriate bible verses along with the logic rule it applies to.

Scripture does not claim to be a manual on logic, physics, or epistemology but what it does claim is that without the God of Scripture man cannot account for why the rules that govern those sciences have any meaning at all. If they are just man made laws as you suggests I don’t see any real reason why anyone should adhere to them; at this point it is just one opinion against another, you do beg the question Reynold because you still have not adequately told us how in an atheist universe anyone should feel the need to be honest about any of these fields of science, why does the evolutionist for example feel the need to be honest about the scientific data he finds. If there is no absolute standard of ethics, why not just report the data that seems best to you etc.

You said, Do they just exist because they are self evident? Why are they self evident, etc. etc.? /From what I know, it's because they're evident enough that the greeks and other ancient people have been able to figure out or devise the rules of logic well before your religion did.

“before your religion did”

I think you forgot that I believe in the Bible, Adam was a Christian, not that he knew the term or even the name Christ, but He believed in the God of Christianity, Father, Son, and Spirit, Yahweh, Elohim, The Lord, etc. Of course I believe God made an in His image, man has the work of God’s law written in his heart. Man even when they do not have the written Law they are a law to themselves, they know it is wrong to kill, steal, abuse each other etc. this is owing to the fact that God created man with a conscience. Again you may not like the theology of the Bible but that does not disproof it at all.

You said, If he believes morals, logic, meaning are relative abstract entities, then why suppose that anyone should subscribe to his standard of those things./ Do you assume that I'm the only one one the planet who thinks that way?
As for *why* should anyone subscribe to them, well, I guess helping people get along in society doesn't mean much to you?

But given your relativistic worldview, why should we care about “helping” any one with anything. Suppose I do not accept your standard of morality, notice you have just presupposed a universal standard that should be axiomatic and self evident. Now I understand what you mean perfectly because I can give an account for in my Theistic worldview, you cannot, and saying that it is ‘just that way’ is nonsense and only proofs that you are living on borrowed time, with borrowed air, with borrowed morals and standards. This world is the Lord’s Reynolds and everything in it. If you wish to ignore that it will be to your own peril.

You said, I don't think, given his atheist worldview, can he can account for these things without first subscribing to the types of things that are explainable only in the Christian worldview. /What arrogance to think that it's only *your* religion that has those ideas. Morals, logic, and meaning have been examined by many people before your religion ever came along, and by people in other parts of the world that your religion hadn't gotten to yet when they were pondering those things.

Same answer as above about Adam and Eve, simple stuff that children learn in Sunday school, Scripture has the historical precedence over all other religions because ours goes back to the original man, you can’t get much further back than that.

You said, On last point, I define right and wrong by thinking the thoughts of God after Him. /So no matter what "God" says, you'll go along and say it's "right". Kind of arbitrary, don't you think?

No not at all, what is arbitrary is the way that you reference the Greeks as some standard that supposedly support your ideas, do you follow Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, the presocratics? And if you do, you have a lot of faith in the manuscript evidence that exists for their writings which is lamentable compared to Scripture. You know I have not found one good reason to reject any of God’s thoughts yet, so yes, I will follow what God says because I see no good reason not to.

You said, What does "God" use as a standard of morality then? In the OT in many instances "God" said to kill pregnant women and babies. How do you feel about those actions by themselves in those times? What about those actions now? What's changed since then?

The rest of your response is just evidence of your ignorance and due to your dogma on theology you do not even understand I think it arrogant to ask others to follow you conclusion theologically speaking. “what has changed since then?”, Revelation!

Theologically speaking the nature of revelation was progressive until it was crystallized in Christ. Christ came to give us the final disclosure of God to the world. Christ by His life and death fulfilled all of God demands for justice.

God sits in heaven and does whatever He pleases. He does not need my defense because God’s actions need no defense. This is simply a misunderstanding of our creature-Creator relationship to God, God is holy we are sinful, God should punish and destroy all evil, sin, and whatever else is contrary to His holy nature. The fact that He does not kill atheist like yourself and all sinner for that matter is nothing but His grace and mercy.

Questions about God’s character, given your worldview, just don’t make sense. Besides that it’s hypocritical, did you forget how many people have been killed by atheist regimes like Stalin’s and others? Given your worldview, who are you to judge God’s actions? If there is no standard of good and evil, why should I care about this question.

stranger.strange.land said...

You asked, "...what standards is he held to?"

Held to by whom; sinful and rebellious men and women? We owe it to His mercy and grace that we even exist, let alone go on in our sinful state.

Reynold, what you said would only make sense if you were talking about a mere mortal.

Craig B.

Reynold said...

stranger.strange.land said...

But Reynold, I'm sure that you recognise that parents do have prerogatives that the children do not have. How much more the eternal Creator than those who are created by Him.

Do parents have the right to kill their kids?


-----
God sits in heaven and does whatever He pleases. He does not need my defense because God’s actions need no defense. This is simply a misunderstanding of our creature-Creator relationship to God, God is holy we are sinful, God should punish and destroy all evil, sin, and whatever else is contrary to His holy nature.
How can one tell what's contrary to "his holy nature" though? Many of his actions, especially in the OT are the kinds of things that you people would call "sinful" if humans do it.

All this "holy" morality of your god is nothing but a double standard.

If we can't call him bad when he does something bad, then how can you call him good when he does something we consider "good"?

If we "mere mortals" can't "judge" god then that would include any positive judgements. What we're left with is an amoral being, one who does what he pleases, as your god does.

The fact that He does not kill atheist like yourself and all sinner for that matter is nothing but His grace and mercy.
Oh please...


Theologically speaking the nature of revelation was progressive until it was crystallized in Christ. Christ came to give us the final disclosure of God to the world. Christ by His life and death fulfilled all of God demands for justice.
In order for that to be the case, that would mean that christ would have had to been "sinless" right?

Is that the same kind of "sinless" where Christ, as "God", is able to do whatever he pleases and we're not allowed to criticize, or was he "sinless" in the terms of having to live under the same kind of rules as the rest of us?


Questions about God’s character, given your worldview, just don’t make sense. Besides that it’s hypocritical, did you forget how many people have been killed by atheist regimes like Stalin’s and others?
You need to learn some history. Why? You're missing a few facts:

1) Religous regimes have been committing crimes against humanity for century after century, "atheist" regimes (note the quote marks) have done that for decades at most.

2) In the times of the religous regimes persecutions, there were a: Far less people due to less agriculture, etc. and b: far less efficient weapons. That's why religous regimes have killed less people numerically than so-called "atheist" states.

If any of you bothered to look at the percentages of people killed, you'd have far less reason to be self-righteous. For example, the Thirty Years War which started with a religious motivation, wiped out about a third of the people in the German territories. What would that be in today's numbers?

Given your worldview, who are you to judge God’s actions?
I'm a person who is against the killing of pregnant women and babies. Why do you ask? Do you need clarification or something?

If there is no standard of good and evil, why should I care about this question.
I'm just showing that your standard (your "god") is not so much a solid/consistent standard of morality, but more like a rubber ruler.

If he can do whatever he wants then whatever he does is moral, no matter the consequences, or the pain and suffering involved.

Remember his bet with the devil about Job?


====
Same answer as above about Adam and Eve, simple stuff that children learn in Sunday school, Scripture has the historical precedence over all other religions because ours goes back to the original man, you can’t get much further back than that.
Sorry, but the actual sciences of anthropology and history refute your claim. Try going to the Talk Origins archive or just reading a few text books.

As well, about the Greeks, they had figured out the rules of logic without your religion's input.

Didn't I ask you once which rules of logic the bible listed, since you claimed that your "god" is the only justification for them?

No not at all, what is arbitrary is the way that you reference the Greeks as some standard that supposedly support your ideas
All I used the Greeks for was an example of how people have been able to develop the rules of logic and develop a moral code without resorting to your religious beliefs. Think about it...Look at your country's Constitution: How closely does it follow the ten commandments?

Do you still want to say that we base our moral codes strictly from your religion?

Read up on Greek history and laws,and you'll see that a fair amount of that is what got incorporated into your nations' laws.

do you follow Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, the presocratics?
I know about what they did. Enough to use them as an example of a society that developed the rules of logic and a moral code without needing your religion.

And if you do, you have a lot of faith in the manuscript evidence that exists for their writings which is lamentable compared to Scripture.
*snrrk*

Sorry.

You know I have not found one good reason to reject any of God’s thoughts yet,
From the New Testament how about when Jesus told the rich man to sell all he had and give his money to the poor. Have you done that yet?

so yes, I will follow what God says because I see no good reason not to.
Until you've followed Christ's teaching above, you don't have any right to say that.



Man even when they do not have the written Law they are a law to themselves, they know it is wrong to kill, steal, abuse each other etc. this is owing to the fact that God created man with a conscience. Again you may not like the theology of the Bible but that does not disproof it at all.
What does disprove it is when one looks at all the different cultural rules that are out there, and how contradictory they are. Some cultures had no problem with leaving their senior citizens alone to die (some ancient Eskimo groups). Some practiced cannibalism. Some sacrificed war prisoners.

Yeah, sounds like they all "knew" that it was wrong to kill, sure.

In reality, with no over-riding cultural authority to pass down the same rules to everyone, it's to be expected that different cultures in different times and different situations would come up with different rules.

As time goes on and circumstances change, we can hopefully make rules that benefit more and more people and abuse less and less people.



Well, for archeology, there's The View from Nebo, The Bible Unearthed, and Out of the Desert by Steibing.

For refutations of "messianic prophecies" you could look at sites like MessiahTruth dot com, for the bible and science, you could look at bibleandscience dot com site.

For general errancy, including science, you could look at The Skeptic's Annotated Bible *Note: The author writes down everything that could possibly be an error, including poetry and dream sequences, so for this site you'll have to check out the stuff that stands under scrutiny.

However to find any possible error, it's an excellent starting point.


Now, about your complaining about the rules of logic: If you claim that your "god" is the "transcendent" source of logic, then back it up, please.

List the bible verses that describe all the laws of logic, or else give up your claim.

But as far as the laws of logic being a convention devised by man, then this would just beg the question further, by what standard should we adhere to those conventions, if they are relative then why adhere to them, again given your worldview, you have no real answer for this, you have an opinion, a suggestion, or even a hypothesis, but real answer because you have no transcendent reference point.
Until you provide the bible verses that list all the rules of logic, you don't either.

What makes you think that we need a "trancendent" reference point anyway? By saying that "God" devised them (with no evidence I might add), all you've done is push the problem back one step: Instead of people coming up with the rules of logic, you have a different being coming up with them

They have a proven track record.

Reynold said...

PS: That stuff about the archeology books and the sites that refuted bible prophecy were in regards to emram's talking about how I had to "disrpove" the bible or something...

Whateverman said...

emram, how do you account for your ability to tell the difference between logic having come from God, and logic having come from Satan?

It's a rhetorical question, really, because you can't. So while the question of how we justify the use of logic is an interesting one, you're in the same place as non-theists: you have faith that logic and perception works.

Claim that God created it, if you want, but you don't have the ability to tell whether it was Satan in disguise or not - so why bother...

get_education said...

emram

An imaginary "transcendental standard" no matter how superior makes you feel (for having a "standard"), is still imaginary. It actually puts you in a worse position than the atheist who can perceive how the standards have developed through the history of humankind and human thinking, and who can accept that there might be times when things have to change. Christians instead feel the need to "keep the standard" even when obviously wrong given what times and situations tell them (take slavery for one, gay marriage for another). When forced to accept the new standards Christians just reinterpret the Bible like a horoscope, then claim they were for the new standard all along, and that humanity is finally catching up with the Bible's teachings.

Asking people to first justify stuff is a red herring (it avoids answering a question). If you see an obvious situation showing the Christian God to have a low moral standard, then, instead of answering, you ask for a standard. Yeah, right, like asking for a standard makes the actions right. Pure dishonest rhetoric.

If morals were absolute your God would stand behind them. Otherwise they are not absolute, they would be contingent on your God.

Reynold answered all the questions quite well. It is your rhetorical method of arguing that does not allow you to see it. Perhaps "not convenient to your worldview"?

G.E.

stranger.strange.land said...

@Whateverman.

I don't know what emram's answer will be, but the Christian worldview has God as source of all else that is. Satan is a creature. Whatever Satan comes up with can only be a perversion, or "twisting" of what already exists. That was easy, wasn't it?

Have a safe and prosperous week, Jon.

Craig B.

Reynold said...

Yes, it was "easy", but can you back it up?

Reynold said...

Something relevent I've found from the newest installment of the Atheist Experience blog on the Sunday, February 22, 2009 posting titled: Open thread on today's show...

But did you catch the part where Slick essentially admitted God could not be omnipotent, because God could not do anything to defy a logical absolute? Which Matt D. then pointed out proved that God had to be contingent upon logical absolutes and not the author of them? To which Slick again responded with "Nuh-uh"? Based on today's call, it seems clear to me that all Slick is doing with TAG is trying to find a way to call logic "God."

Fish with Trish said...

Reynold, couple quick questions...I think I posted a couple of these but not sure if you responded. So here it goes again...does evolution give you hope in this life, and if it does, what are hoping in? If you have no hope then are you an nihilist? Do you believe in anarchy and destruction, and the irrelevance of argumentation and reason? And if so why do you bother us with his arguments on evolution? What are you going to do when you have to face God on Judgment day? What will you say?

emram said...

"An imaginary "transcendental standard" no matter how superior makes you feel (for having a "standard"), is still imaginary."

Everything in your post just assumes the same type of nonsensical worldview as Reynold's. You fail to admit how much atheists assume, presuppose, and take for granted. Maybe the reason you think a transcendental standard is imaginary is because your worldview is devoid of one, or actually it is just devoid of being able to justify one. The imaginary realm is yours not mine. God is not imaginary because without Him nothing would be intelligible in the first place.

"It actually puts you in a worse position than the atheist who can perceive how the standards have developed through the history of humankind and human thinking, and who can accept that there might be times when things have to change. Christians instead feel the need to "keep the standard" even when obviously wrong given what times and situations tell them (take slavery for one, gay marriage for another). When forced to accept the new standards Christians just reinterpret the Bible like a horoscope, then claim they were for the new standard all along, and that humanity is finally catching up with the Bible's teachings."

Sorry but this is just complete nonsense. If you think that Christians do not have a good understanding of history or the history of philosophy you are just ignorant of the facts and need to "get educated" pardon the pun. “just reinterpret the Bible” not sure what you are referring to here?? There is only one interpretation of the Bible, it’s meaning and exegesis, grammar, and historical background do not change with time.

This is the type of thing that is not even worth answering.

"Asking people to first justify stuff is a red herring (it avoids answering a question)."

It is not a red herring to ask a person to define one’s terms, worldview, and basis for his/her terms it is asking the question to be more specific. If a relativist asks a question about morality, does it not make sense given their worldview (the implications which many atheist, relativist, and agnostics etc. have never thought deeply about), to ask the person to define what morals are, and the nature of the method or “standard” by which they discovered that? This is just the Christian not willing to assume as much as the non-Christian.

Given the worldview under question I can see why these types of questions are frustrating and unattainable it’s because given your worldview they are unattainable and thus, ultimately frustrating.


“instead of answering”


Maybe you were not paying close enough attention, I did answer the question. But you see the problem is not that I do not have an answer or supply one but that Reynold and those like him are not happy with the answer given its theological nature. But again, given their position as an enemy of God through wicked deeds (here’s where Ray Comfort comes in i.e. showing that all have sinned by violating God’s law) the Biblical account will never due for them. What is necessary is to humble yourself, realize that you are not autonomous, that you are breathing God’s air, taking up His time, and living in His world and then repent for not giving Him glory and credit for those things.

"If morals were absolute your God would stand behind them. Otherwise they are not absolute, they would be contingent on your God."

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the theology of the Bible. God is not bound to a standard outside of Himself as if it exists independently of Him. All absolute standards are derived analogically from the character and being of God. God is Absolute, the universe is not open to God, all facts are in for Him, he does not assume information as we do, He is not subject to standards higher than Himself as we are, this is what it means to be God. And no, I don’t think Reynold answered any of my questions. Maybe you want to give it a shot.

stranger.strange.land said...

Stranger had said to Whateverman:
I don't know what emram's answer will be, but the Christian worldview has God as source of all else that is. Satan is a creature. Whatever Satan comes up with can only be a perversion, or "twisting" of what already exists.

That was easy, wasn't it?


Then Reynold said:
Yes, it was "easy", but can you back it up?

Back what up? My saying that the Christian worldview holds God to be the creator and source of all else that is, and that Satan is a creature? That is axiomatic.

get_education said...

emram,

Everything in your post just assumes the same type of nonsensical worldview as Reynold's. You fail to admit how much atheists assume, presuppose, and take for granted.

So your God is not something you take for granted? Riiiight. Will you say "no" because you have the Bible as his revelation? Then are you not taking the Bible as the word of God for granted? Riiiight.

How is it "wrong" to take reality for granted? At the very least my standard (and this is what humanity has used as a standard, not your God) for deriving logic, or math would be the test of reality, and thus those things would evolve as we find the mistakes in the abstractions. Reality as a brute fact makes much more sense than God as a brute fact since God is just impossible to prove.

Maybe the reason you think a transcendental standard is imaginary is because your worldview is devoid of one,

Nah! It is enough to witness the evolution of beliefs throughout human history. Nothing to do with worldviews. Reality is reality. I can see through your beliefs because I shared them. I knew from the inside how little sense your arguments made. The only way your arguments "seem to make sense" is if yo are already convinced of God's existence. Then your mind fools you into thinking you are making sense when you are not.

or actually it is just devoid of being able to justify one.

Again, an magnary justification accompanied by your need to believe that you are right can make you feel superior (precisely my point), and try and make me feel like I lack something you do have. You fail because it is way too obvious that you cannot prove that your standard is not imaginary.

The imaginary realm is yours not mine. God is not imaginary because without Him nothing would be intelligible in the first place.

What you really mean is that God exists because you think nothing would make sense without him. I safely see things making sense, and at no point do I need to pray for "my worldview" to make sense. It does in and of itself.

Unless you have enough imagination to see through yourself you will be just unable to see how self-righteous, arrogant, and faulty your argument looks.

You also assume too much about atheistic worldviews, which are variable. This makes you look even more self-righteous and arrogant. I would not mind if you gave me a nice and well supported theistic answer. I would be just as happy accepting something that does make sense. However, you did not do that. TAG arguments are full of rhetorical tricks and nothing more. I can see that. I wonder if you will ever be able to see that too. I have nothing against there being a God. I just do not see any reason to believe it does. You think I am against there being a God. I cannot blame you, this is what your are taught. But it is plainly false.

In this regard I would ask you: What would be so enjoyable so that I would deny God in unrighteousness and risk the unavoidable eternal damnation and torture of hell? I do not think there is anything, no matter how pleasurable that would make me risk that much.

G.E.

Reynold said...

Fish with Trish said...

Reynold, couple quick questions...I think I posted a couple of these but not sure if you responded. So here it goes again...does evolution give you hope in this life, and if it does, what are hoping in?

You're not getting it...whether evolution "gives us hope" or not is irrelevent.

It's the theory that best fits the observable facts. Whether a theory or idea gives us hope or not has no bearing on whether it's right or not.

If you have no hope then are you an nihilist?
We make our own paths, and each person makes their own hopes. What does that have to do with whether or not a god exists?

Do you believe in anarchy and destruction,
I prefer secular democracy.

and the irrelevance of argumentation and reason?
What? If I did do you think I'd be arguing so much?

And if so why do you bother us with his arguments on evolution?
"his arguments"? Whose arguments am I using, and No, I do not believe that reason is irrelevent.

What are you trying to get at with all this stuff about "hope"? Let me guess...you're trying to spread the idea that without your god there is no reason for "hope", therefore it'll make it more likely that the people you're talking to will want to believe.

Sorry. As I said before, whether an idea or theory gives a person hope or not has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief or something like that.

What are you going to do when you have to face God on Judgment day? What will you say?
He'd have to exist first.

Reynold said...

To emram:

I have answered your questions...I figure that you just don't like my answers therefore you just say that I never did answer them.

Read my posts again, this time without blinders on. I've given paragraph length answers to your questions.

Reynold said...

Back what up? My saying that the Christian worldview holds God to be the creator and source of all else that is, and that Satan is a creature? That is axiomatic.
No, it's a statement that has no evidence for it. Can I take it to mean that you can't back it up at all then, and that the only way you can hold such statement as "truth" is that you just assume that they're true and that's that?

stranger.strange.land said...

Hmmmm. We seem to have a communication problem goin' on heah.

My "statement" was that the Christian worldview has God as the creator and source of all other things; and Satan as part of creation. You assumed that element of the Christian worldview (at least for sake of argument) when you suggested that Satan, rather than God might be the source of logic.

Don't go fuzzy on me my friend. I can't stand it when you start to go fuzzy. : )

Craig B.

get_education said...

Stranger,

I don't know what emram's answer will be, but the Christian worldview has God as source of all else that is. Satan is a creature. Whatever Satan comes up with can only be a perversion, or "twisting" of what already exists.

Exactly! So, could the TAG argument be Satan's way of keeping nonbelievers as such? Satan could be giving you reassurance that it makes sense, so that you will expose Christianity as a bunch of dishonest people willing to display fallacious hyper-convoluted arguments that will be hard to the layman to perceive as such, especially if they seem to strengthen their beliefs, yet will keep the intellectual atheist (not all atheists are intellectuals), who can see the problems quite obviously and painful even to refute because of the obfuscation entailed in the arguments (try explaining why 2+2 equals 4 to someone who thinks you need God to prove it). Easy way to keep those who could best help the cause of God away from God.

You see? (Yet this is not Reynold's point. I know.)

G.E.

stranger.strange.land said...

Hi Get_Education. It is good to talk with you again. There is a lot less clutter at FishWith Trish, isn't there?

You do realise that the transcendental argument is not a system designed to "prove" the existence of God, don't you. Even Sye admits that, despite the name of his web site.

Yes, I have done some research on it, as I told you I would in December. No I haven't signed up as an official 'pre-supper' with the secret handshake and decoding ring. :) I do think it is worth learning about though, at least so I don't have any misconceptions about what is being said.

As you can tell from my posts from this past year, I am more into evangelism than apologetics, but it is important to be familiar with the arguments, too.

As far as this crazy deal about logic coming from Satan vs, from God, I'm just waiting for Jon (whateverman) to explain that. I can't understand Reynold's take on it.

Take care, my friend.

Craig B.

Logic Lad said...

Trish

I make it to your front page and there is an embarrassing spelling mistake, it should be live not love in 'I appreciate that you think that the way I love will condemn me'
I strive for accuracy however the version here does make me sound far more interesting.

Anyway to answer the question

No I don't fear gravity, why should I, it is not a malign force waiting to grab me, it is simple fact of being. Fear of death does not stop me jumping from a high tower, love of life does.

If you want to call the whole of existence creation then you do imply a creator, but that has more to do with backhand wordplay then actually proving anything.

Christianity does not hold a exclusive right to morality, as Reynold discusses further down in the comments there are plenty of societies that came up with codes of morality not all that much different to our own, that have nothing to do with the Bible. Your argument is circular, wisdom comes from the bible, if you are wise you will do what the bible tells you. this is not moving the discussion forward at all.

and don't forget, just because you do believe in something doesn’t mean it exists.

Emram

Thanks for answering the question, even if it was in a different thread.

Morality is not universal, if it was it would be unchanging and consistent throughout the entire world, it clearly isn't. There are many places where things that are considered immoral and wrong here are consider perfectly fine.

Christian morality has changed over time, even the nature of God seems to change from the OT to the NT, from a jealous amoral king to a (at best) stern father.

Perceived morality is just the glue that holds any given society together. Our morals allow us to interact and live in close proximity with a fair chance of being able to predict the actions of those around us.

I don't know enough about the development of logic to really say, but given it has a certain mathematical quality to it In my opinion it probably is universal.

Given that morality is not universal then your infinite reference point becomes a hindrance not an advantage. As the needs of society changes then your reference point becomes more and more incorrect. as can be seen by the changes in the perceived nature of God through the OT and the NT.
Morality does not, and should not have a fixed point, it should be always able to shift and change to become that which is needed by society.

I am now going to blatantly cheery pick some responses to questions in the rest of this thread.

Stranger.Strange.Land said 'But Reynold, I'm sure that you recognise that parents do have prerogatives that the children do not have.'

I agree, but then again parents are held, normally, to high moral standard than their children, indeed the transgression of the children are more often seen as a lack in the parent than in the child. Not to mention a parent that says one thing and does another is normally considered to be a bad example. So killing one's own child and then telling others that to do so is morally wrong is hypocrisy.

Emram said 'It is one thing to point to the Greek philosophers of old, it is another thing to tell us where they were right'

Emram I think you are missing the point with what Reynolds is trying to achieve, he is not saying that the ancient Greeks where inherently right, he is saying that there basis for morality was just as valid as that based on Christianity. He does not need to prove anyone is right, you are the one arguing that there is a single moral reference point, it is for you to demonstrate the validity of your claim.

Emram

I will have a stab at 'given your atheist worldview, I am asserting that you cannot account for why you do so' though I suspect that reynold can do and has done so far more eloquently.

My world view is an outgrowth of my education and personal experience. I have had a fairly religious upbringing so I will happily admit that it helped me to form the basis of my own moral code, however I have moved beyond the need to rely of ancient teachings to dictate my every action. I now use aspects of all my knowledge and intellect to make moral choices based on the requirements of the situation, my empathy for the feelings and needs or others and the desire to remain a part of a functioning society and not be cast out from it. This has lead me to belief that logic serves me to answer problems better than blind faith and that that I don't need a 2000 year old book to tell me what is right and wrong.

Emram said 'If you are saying that God has not answered these questions for us, He has, in Scripture.'

it is your belief that he has, others do not share you assertions. Without some sort of further evidence this is not going to move this discussion forward.

Why should the universe, physics, maths and logic have a meaning? they are natural occurrences in a natural world, they simply are. It is only mans fear of the unknown and truly staggering arrogance that he feels he must justify his existence with some higher meaning.

Emram said 'If they are just man made laws as you suggests I don’t see any real reason why anyone should adhere to them'

Because failing to do so would cause the fall of society, the concepts of morality exist to allow us to live in dense population. without them you would have to spend all your time defending and feeding yourself that there would be no time to do anything else. our societies allow us to achieve as a group far greater things than we could as individuals, so it is in all our interests to play by the rules. This is the main reason why morality is not a universal constant but a moving thing, in very real terms it doesn’t matter what moral grounds you take as long as the majority can live by them and hence form a community. That is not to say that I don't have opinions on what is and isn't moral I consider my self a very moral person, within the accepted moral code of this time in this place.

Emram said 'I think you forgot that I believe in the Bible, Adam was a Christian'

This is the kind of thing I expect to see on FSTDT, Adam cannot be a Christian, if he existed as laid down in Genesis, and I only take this stance as hypothetical point as I clearly think that he is fictional, then he was of no religion, he actually had a personal, physical relationship with a being much more powerful than himself, religion requires faith, Adam had fact.

Emram said 'this is owing to the fact that God created man with a conscience'

Or a conscience, the ability to empathise and understand when our actions hurt others, is an outgrowth of our evolution as social primates, when the feeling bad when you do something that is bad for the group is an evolutionary advantage.

stranger.strange.land said'Held to by whom; sinful and rebellious men and women? We owe it to His mercy and grace that we even exist, let alone go on in our sinful state.'

Again adopting the hypothetical viewpoint that god exists, Would you consider a king just and fair if he behaved the way that god does? he has his own son killed, for crimes he did not commit, to appease his own will, and then tells his people that murder and anger are wrong. Why should we not hold a being accountable to the same level of morality that we are held to, just because he is more powerful than us and can do what he likes does no make his actions morally correct, he just has no one, other than himself, to keep him line. Strange you think behaviour like that of a spoilt child would be considered moral?

get_education said...

Hi Stranger,

Yep, less messy over here.

I know that you have not gone to presupping. I was just using that as an example of how something given by Satan might be indistinguishable from something given by God.

I agree with you that, given your evangelism, it is good to know the arguments around.

Anyway, good to talk to you too.

Best,
G.E.

Reynold said...

logic lad:
Emram I think you are missing the point with what Reynolds is trying to achieve, he is not saying that the ancient Greeks where inherently right, he is saying that there basis for morality was just as valid as that based on Christianity. He does not need to prove anyone is right, you are the one arguing that there is a single moral reference point, it is for you to demonstrate the validity of your claim.
Yeah.

emram said...

Get educated said, “So your God is not something you take for granted? Riiiight. Will you say "no" because you have the Bible as his revelation? Then are you not taking the Bible as the word of God for granted? Riiiight.”

Well, I would say we all take God for granted whether we admit it or not. As a nonbeliever I took God for granted for many years. I assumed all the absolutes that are provided in a theistic worldview and used them hypocritically as you do now. Today because of the reality of conversion, the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and the comporting of Scripture to all belief and practice…I do accept Scripture as true. I do not take Scripture for granted, in the sense maybe that you are alluding to, but I do admit that it is God’s word and without Scripture man could not arrive at the certainty of who God is, what man is etc.

One must presuppose certain things, the laws of logic, laws of morality, uniformity of nature etc. etc. These are the preconditions to intelligibility. Preconditions that I believe are contingent upon nature and character of God Himself. Everyone has their presuppositions, the only question is, who’s presuppositions supply the necessary preconditions of intelligibility?

Get educated said, “How is it "wrong" to take reality for granted?”
Hmmm? I don’t think that the problem is that you take reality for granted per se. But that in doing that, you are not adequately giving any answers as to why, (once again folks, GIVEN YOUR ESPOUSED WORLDVIEW) morality, logic, ethics or anything else should be given any meaning. Please try to understand the argument apart from just repeating that you have a standard, or that you think logically. But upon what basis is your standard relevant?

Why should we care about your notion of right or wrong? Please explain this without first presupposing the morality found in Scripture, the Ten Commandments, or some other principle found in Scripture. All we are saying is that God has given these absolute abstract and universal laws to man, and thus they are transcendent in nature. They are not material and certainly not conventional in nature.

G.E. said, “Reality as a brute fact makes much more sense than God as a brute fact since God is just impossible to prove.”
Not to me it does not. Reality by itself is not a brute fact. Even if it where…it never answers the metaphysical questions. Atheists hate metaphysical questions yet their campaign against the existence of God is essentially based upon metaphysical claims; but if metaphysical questions are not allowed then why should their claims against God (a non material entity) be allowed? This is why I would never want to be an atheist. They do not explain anything about the total picture.

G.E. said, “Reality is reality”
Wow, talk about being arrogant. You go on a rant towards the end of your post about being arrogant and self-righteous, but this is arrogance ad infinitum. “reality is reality” then what are you doing in this blog? Again, this is what I mean by the presuppositions of atheism. Scripture is absolutely right, “the fool has said in his heart there is not God”. This is not just meant to insult you, but to show you the type of worldview you have bought into. This sounds more like blind faith to me than anything. Why should we assume uniformity in the first place?

What if I were to get on this blog and say, “God is God” and that is just the way it is? I would be verbally stoned to death. At least in stating that “God is God” I give transcendental arguments for the existence of God.

G.E. said, “Nah! It is enough to witness the evolution of beliefs throughout human history. Nothing to do with worldviews.. I can see through your beliefs because I shared them. I knew from the inside how little sense your arguments made. The only way your arguments "seem to make sense" is if yo are already convinced of God's existence. Then your mind fools you into thinking you are making sense when you are not.”

“Witnessing the evolution of beliefs”, like I asked Reynold, so what species do you subscribe to? Are you convinced of the skepticism of Hume? The dialectical philosophy of Hegel? The nihilism of Nietzsche? Or is it that you are just such an agnostic, that you have no idea what you believe in which case you have no reason to be on this blog telling anyone about reality when you do not even know what it is or how to understand it.

We on the other hand ask a bigger question, what are the necessary preconditions that make all of these philosophers and their thought intelligible in the first place?? We see humanism, materialism, and existentialism as insufficient answers to any of these questions.

“you lack something”. In this way, you do lack something. You lack the ability to account for your worldview. You may imagine that you have no worldview, but you do….even if you believe in nothing, that is a worldview. If you really have seen the evolution of beliefs through history then surely you believe in the inescapability of a worldview.

G.E said, “What you really mean is that God exists because you think nothing would make sense without him. I safely see things making sense, and at no point do I need to pray for "my worldview" to make sense. It does in and of itself.”

I really think that in the end you will not be satisfied with a worldview that cannot account for the laws of logic, that cannot account for the laws of morality, that cannot account for uniformity in nature. This places you in a hopeless world. One devoid of real substance, meaning, and purpose. What is the purpose of life E.G.? What is the meaning of your life? Is it simply to try to get by in this world? To try to be a good member of society (for no apparent reason)? To have a happy family life, but only to die and decompose in the ground and be eaten by worms when you die?? These are questions that I do not believe non Biblical worldviews can adequately answer, at least not without recourse somewhere down the line to the biblical worldview.


G.E said, “Unless you have enough imagination to see through yourself you will be just unable to see how self-righteous, arrogant, and faulty your argument looks.”
The only faulty argument is yours. You say that Christianity is false and that to believe it to be the one and only standard for understanding reality is “arrogant, self righteous etc” without giving us a standard for what self-righteousness is other than what Scripture itself would teach. You say Christianity is illogical and does not make sense without supplying where the laws of logic come from.

You say others have answers too, without telling us where they are right or wrong. You seem to have a deep sense about what is right or wrong, without telling us what morality is, where it comes from, and why we should believe in your particular standard of those things. Faulty?? Your entire worldview dies the death of thousand qualifications, yet you are unwilling to rise to occasion an even begin to give us the slightest thing that resembles an answer for how those types of things are answered in your atheist worldview.

The rest of your post is not worth answering. Again God is there and He is not silent. He has spoken in the Old and New Testaments. We know what God is like because He has told us. We know what man is like because God has told us. We know about morals, logic, and truth because all of these are consistent with God’s revelation.

Apart from God revealing Himself to man, man would be in the dark about all of these things. That is why all of humanist philosophers both ancient and modern have ended in non-sense, sometimes insanity attempting to construct and epistemology without recourse to God’s revelation. There could be no greater proof to the existence of God than the impossibility of the contrary. How do you know that the law of non contradiction is true? Attempt to deny it. You could want no greater proof than that without God the transcendental grounds for intelligibility itself are impossible and meaningless.

Reynold said...

One must presuppose certain things, the laws of logic, laws of morality, uniformity of nature etc. etc. These are the preconditions to intelligibility. Preconditions that I believe are contingent upon nature and character of God Himself.
Belief is one thing; backing it up is another. What makes you think that?


Can you for instance list the bible verses that describe all the laws of logic?

get_education said...

emram,

All your rant is meaningless. No matter how much you insist, all you did was explain why your "worldview" makes you feel "explained." Yet, nothing in your rant makes me think that your God is not imaginary, nor that it is a necessary precondition for intelligibility. Nor anything in there convinces me that my "worldview" does not allow me to use logic (or anything) without "borrowing from your worldview." It all presents itself like an arrogant and convoluted set of irrational claims about basic preconditions of existence. Next you will claim that, for rational numbers, 2 plus 2 is 4 only because God says so.

But let us go by steps:

Why should we assume uniformity in the first place?

Why not? Show me, how exactly atheism does not allow for the uniformity of nature. (Which is a bit misrepresented in your wording, but let us see what you got.)

G.E.

get_education said...

How do you know that the law of non contradiction is true? Attempt to deny it.

How do you know it would not be true without a God holding it? This is what I mean by irrational claims. Why should it not be true without God? Prove it. Do not give me that red herring of "the impossibility of the contrary" give me The positive evidence backing up your claim.

G.E.

get_education said...

Oh, and I did not say that Christianity is false. I said your claims are.

get_education said...

emram,

I did tell you where the laws of logic come from. Reynold did too. Your failure to acknowledge the answers tells a lot about your "strategy." and your "Christian honesty."

G.E.

get_education said...

emram,

How do you know that the law of non contradiction is true? Attempt to deny it.

Exactly! Attempt to deny it my friend. You answered yourself, and without any of God's help.

So, now you see why your claims are irrational?

G.E.

get_education said...

I am sorry emram, but you are so much fun: :-D

“reality is reality” then what are you doing in this blog?

Why would reality being reality make me feel like I should not be in this blog?

(Oh, I am having such a great time re-reading your stuff. Sorry, I know I said we should go by steps, but wow, you are so funny that I can barely help myself.)

G.E.

get_education said...

Actually emram, maybe we can reach an agreement and stop sending self-righteous/arrogant claims to each other:

Since we are talking about "worldviews," and not about whether they are anything proximal to the truth, let us just contrast:

Yours: Reality is a reflection of God's nature and this allows us to use reality to formulate foundational principles, such as the laws of logic, which are the source for intelligibility.

Mine: Reality is a brute fact, this brute fact is what we have used to formulate foundational principles, such as the laws of logic, which are the source for intelligibility.

Contrast: Yours adds a being to hold it all together that is unnecessary in mine.

That is it.

G.E.

stranger.strange.land said...

A question from the audience:

Don't the laws of logic need to be assumed prior to identifying a brute fact as a brute fact?

Craig

get_education said...

Hi Craig,

Don't the laws of logic need to be assumed prior to identifying a brute fact as a brute fact?

emram's claim was that no worldview can justify intelligibility without God. He was not disputing the existence of logic.

G.E.

Javier said...

Since we are talking about "worldviews," and not about whether they are anything proximal to the truth, let us just contrast:

Yours: Reality is a reflection of God's nature and this allows us to use reality to formulate foundational principles, such as the laws of logic, which are the source for intelligibility.

Mine: Reality is a brute fact, this brute fact is what we have used to formulate foundational principles, such as the laws of logic, which are the source for intelligibility.

Contrast: Yours adds a being to hold it all together that is unnecessary in mine.


While we're at it, I guess I'll share my worldview? I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to say, are you simply just telling us what your worldview is?

Care to demonstrate how reality can be a 'brute' fact? And what exactly does 'brute' mean? If by 'brute' you mean that its intuitive, or obvious then can you tell me how you're not a brain in a vat.

get_education said...

Hi Javier,

No, reality as a brute fact is my "presupposition," just like God is emram's. So, in my "worldview" you need to be able to justify God. In emram's nothing makes sense without such a God and thus it is self-evident. In mine there is no such thing, since reality as a brute fact is self-evident. Therefore, if I have to justify or prove my presuppositions to make you happy according to emram's worldview, then you have to be able to justify and prove God according to mine. Otherwise, we can end the argument quite happily and leave it like that.

You did not share your "worldview" by the way. Unless your worldview is that we are brains in a vat. Which, if I stretched my worldview (which I may or may not be willing to do other than as an interesting exercise of the imagination), could be a very remote possibility, but unnecessary to prove or disprove for any practical purpose.

G.E.

Melvin_H_Fox said...

The Almighty God of the Bible is just and loving. He alone has the authority to proclaim what is just. He decided that the penalty of sin is death. He decided to accept the freely given sacrifice of His Son Jesus as just payment for the sins of all. Thanks be to God.

You may reject the offer of salvation through faith in Christ but you lack the power and authority to recind the just law of sin and death enacted by the Creator. If you decline the only remedy, then you will suffer the consequences and this by your own choice.

God loves you but will not force Himself on you. He does, by virtue of His authority, impose His will on you by condemnation of the faithless [John 3: 18].

In the love of Christ,
-Mel