Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    The question already assumes too much. What do you mean by "we" when you say "who are we to question God"? Isn't God supposed to be everything? God would not be all powerful otherwise. Therefore God is the one questioning God.

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    A confusing, poorly structured, error-strewn (Have you completely given up trying to spell correctly, or are you unwell?) and illogical op, which boils down to "There's no proof any god exists, so we can't believe anyone who claims to know god's will." Isn't that about it - one compound sentence stretched to a couple thousand words?
    A lot of name calling does not an argument make, and your summary is grossly inaccurate. Mican seemed to understand the point perfectly so read his summary if you want to understand it better.

    If you can actully articulate what is illogical about it, by all means give it a shot, but try to figure out what the actual argument is first.

    ---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by BishBashBosh View Post
    The question already assumes too much. What do you mean by "we" when you say "who are we to question God"? Isn't God supposed to be everything? God would not be all powerful otherwise. Therefore God is the one questioning God.
    Well, in the context of my OP it tends to be a matter of two folks debating. Your point is taken for my part, though not really the ground I'm arguing on.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    For example your assertion that logic and access to knowledge are the same.
    But I have not equated them. I spoke of both and then narrowed it down to just dealing with access to logic.
    I do recogize that they a bit different but the issue of access applies to both.

    And from there your off to the races.. I honestly don't know where to start.


    I guess I would start with the idea that you are taught logic, and that somehow that explains your access to it.
    How do you figure that is an explanation to the problem I am trying to point out?
    Do you think our choice regarding our existence is either natural or supernatural in nature?

    To that we come to your naturalism claims, which I really don't understand. What does Sweden have to do with the idea that all events have a natural vs a supernatural explanation?

    On that, do you think that evolution is the most plausible natural explanation for our existence?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    MT: I think you may need to give SOY some background for the argument you are making, from his responses, I'd say he's not encountered the whole presuppositionalist game plan before.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you are confusing what is commonly accepted, with it's valid or invalid justifcation.
    God is a valid justification for access to logic. Atheism has no such plausibl justification.
    I don't think I am confused. You think that the foundation of all logic, reason and morality etc stems from God and the bible and you would argue that without God thre can be no logic etc....
    There fore mr atheists world view is one in which there is no logic and your world view is one in which there is, thus you are superior etc...
    Well here is the deal, one of us may be right or we may both be wrong.
    If you are right: Then there is a God, there is logic, and we are both using it to have our argument, thus we are both equal in our ability to reason.
    If I am right: Then there is no god, there is logic anyway, and we are both using it to have our argument, thus we are both equal in our ability to reason.
    If you are half right: and without god there is no logic, and there is no god, then we are both babbling nonsense at eachother and can never know anything but still even ground for you and I.
    Any way you slice it, weare on the same ground in terms of our ability to have an argument and make valid arguments.

    It seems to me you want to have it both ways: You believe in god, thus have access to truth, wheil I don't and thus live in a world without truth. Well its pretty clear taht is not the case since the two worldviews are mutually exclusive the can't both be true silmutaneously.

    Further, when you are granting the existance of God, it has consiquences in regards to our confidience, starting at access to logic.
    At no point am I granting the existence of God. The only assumption I grant is that mankind is fallable in his reasoning at least some of the time.

    You can't point to human falibility and simply assume God away in the equation (nor assume him into it without cause iether).
    I don't. All I say is this. If humans are falable and imperfect in their reasoning, and arguments for gods come from humans, those arguments are no more reliable than arguments agsint god. I am claiming even ground, not superior ground.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    MT: I think you may need to give SOY some background for the argument you are making, from his responses, I'd say he's not encountered the whole presuppositionalist game plan before.
    Yea, I am having trouble articulating a way to deconstruct his presuppositions in a way that he can understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    There fore mr atheists world view is one in which there is no logic and your world view is one in which there is, thus you are superior etc...
    A small correction. Not that there is no logic, but that on Atheism we have no reason for it, or reason to think we have access to it.

    So there is another line to add to your alternatives.
    That theism right or wrong has a valid explanation. Atheism, be it right or wrong has no valid explanation.
    It is not equal ground when only one position has the potential for a valid explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    At no point am I granting the existence of God. The only assumption I grant is that mankind is fallable in his reasoning at least some of the time.
    Fair enough. I speak of both positions as though they are true, and so on those positions they must justify their own statements.
    That theism can justify logic and that atheism can not, does not appear to be equal ground on any count.

    On both granting human fallibility, it is only theism that has a reason to hope they have access, on atheism there is no reason to hope. And on that count I do not see them on equal ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't. All I say is this. If humans are falable and imperfect in their reasoning, and arguments for gods come from humans, those arguments are no more reliable than arguments agsint god. I am claiming even ground, not superior ground.
    I would have to say that logical arguments are not in the category as "coming from humans". We don't make logical arguments in an appeal to ourselves or our own authority either for or against God.

    I get it, your shaking the table of the discussion upon which we build these pretty card towers of logic.
    My point is that for the christian position, you may shake the table. But on atheism you shake the universe.
    You must assume God or dismiss him when you appeal to logic, and in so doing the grounds of discourse are not equal.

    It is very different to assume God and say that we are fallible and thus may never know him.
    Vs
    Reject God, and say that we are fallible and thus nothing can be known at all.

    At the very least the former has a reason for faith in the actual grasping and attaining truth. On the latter, there is no reason to discuss because as you say we are ultimately just babbling.
    The rub is that we don't appear to be, and only one valid explanation exists. .. God.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    A lot of name calling does not an argument make, and your summary is grossly inaccurate. Mican seemed to understand the point perfectly so read his summary if you want to understand it better.
    I called you no names, Sig. And I don't read Mican's posts anymore.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But I have not equated them. I spoke of both and then narrowed it down to just dealing with access to logic.
    I do recogize that they a bit different but the issue of access applies to both.
    This is something you need to explain as i can think of no reason as to why access to logic is not easily done and requires no supernatural support.
    I guess I would start with the idea that you are taught logic, and that somehow that explains your access to it.
    How do you figure that is an explanation to the problem I am trying to point out?
    I really do not think you have a problem to point out. As i have said, you appear to be wanting to burden atheism with many things it was not designed or used for.

    Do you think our choice regarding our existence is either natural or supernatural in nature?
    You spoke about certainty at one point. A problem you do have and all theists have, is a need for certainty. This question you ask is why many theists simply cannot grasp atheism. I do not know the answer to that but more importantly i cannot think of one good reason as to why i should care. This question you pose is nothing more than western metaphysics or eastern zen. So the answer is nothing more than 42 or the sound of one hand clapping.
    To that we come to your naturalism claims, which I really don't understand. What does Sweden have to do with the idea that all events have a natural vs a supernatural explanation?
    Nothing. What my remark meant was that atheism gives no reason to be a naturalist. While people can and do easily claim that while god does not exist they do object to their government building roads through alleged elves housing. It is not easy to maintain a naturalist philosophy and insist that there really are elves at the bottom of the garden.
    On that, do you think that evolution is the most plausible natural explanation for our existence?
    So far i have not heard a more plausible natural explanation.

    I think you are confusing what is commonly accepted, with it's valid or invalid justifcation.
    God is a valid justification for access to logic. Atheism has no such plausibl justification.
    This should be interesting. It appears gods understanding and imparting of the knowledge of logic differs from that taught by atheists.
    In logic, validity is easily attainable. An argument can be obviously incorrect yet under logic is considered a valid argument. a more famous of an example of a valid argument:
    All toasters are items made of gold.
    All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
    Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

    In logic an argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well.
    And as you can see by the example given it should not be a problem for either atheist or theist to create a valid justification.

    If i put my mind to it i could create a valid argument as to why god or dr who created the universe. Some of the best fiction writings are also valid arguments. Have you ever read lolita by nabokov? To impress me that you have anything at all your arguments need to be both valid and sound. And i do challenge you to put up an argument for god that is both valid and sound and not just claim it exists.
    Last edited by SoylentGreen; November 29th, 2016 at 09:44 PM.

  9. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I called you no names, Sig. And I don't read Mican's posts anymore.
    You insulted me in a number of different ways declaring how poor my argument was without ever explaining why. That's just throwing insults rather than arguments. Do me a favor and don't read my posts any more either. Thanks!

    ---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A small correction. Not that there is no logic, but that on Atheism we have no reason for it, or reason to think we have access to it.
    Look, I find this whole line of argument dumb as a bag of bricks but I don't want to get into it in this thread. You and I disagree about whether god is necessary for logic to exist. I'm happy to take that up with you in another thread and I may start one. In this one, it is immaterial because eitgher we have logic and humans can access it or we don't and the thesis here is that a treu beleiver can't validly claim the mantle of infallability in an argument on ODN or anywhere else that humans argue with one another.

    So there is another line to add to your alternatives.
    That theism right or wrong has a valid explanation. Atheism, be it right or wrong has no valid explanation.
    It is not equal ground when only one position has the potential for a valid explanation.
    A lot of laoded language there with "valid". Validated by what exactly? I can explain the universe came out of the ass of a giant space cammel but that doesn't mean its true or "valid." Explinations are just possiblities. You can rule them out sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes you can verify them through one process or another. I don't need to explain how the sun works to know its hot. I don't need to explain why I need to drink water to survive to die from thirst. A lack of an explination is not proof positive that the phenomena unexplained does not exist, it only means you don't yet fully understand it. The stars turned in the sky long before any man ever tried to explain them and continued when man had all kinds of very inacurate explinations. Just because you can try to explain logic with god, doesn't mean god is the cause for logic. Nor (and I dispute the notion vigerously) would an atheists lack of explination mean there is no logic.

    On both granting human fallibility, it is only theism that has a reason to hope they have access, on atheism there is no reason to hope. And on that count I do not see them on equal ground.
    And I have explaind why that doesn't matter in the least. Whatever person is right, we either both have logic or we both don't. Trying to boil down the significance of your argument, all I can get is "The theist worldview is superior to the atheist one, therefore we should expect the theist to be correct in any argument they make." That still is somethig of a genetic falacy saying that if the source of an argument is flawed, the argument must be flawed likewise. It doesn't work for deductive logic though if you are making some kind of inductie or abductive claim there is some potential to it. But again, its not really pertinant to my case.

    My argument is about one person trying to speak for god and take the mantale of gods infallability for their side of an argument while the other is relegated to being a mere flawed mortal that cannot posibly challenge the possition. That is the sum total of what I am arguing agaisnt. Your take is really kind of a side line to say "Ya ok I'm not god, but any theists has better ground than an atheist because atheists can't even support the existence of reason."

    Is that a fair summary do you think?

    I would have to say that logical arguments are not in the category as "coming from humans". We don't make logical arguments in an appeal to ourselves or our own authority either for or against God.
    Have you ever seen a logical argument come from anything other than a human being? Did someone other than humans codify logic at some point while I wasn't looking?
    Reguardless its we who try to apply it and we don't always do so accurately which is all I need for my case. Both theist and atehsits, whatever the merits of their world view, are capable of errors in logic and thinking are they not?

    I get it, your shaking the table of the discussion upon which we build these pretty card towers of logic.
    Nope, not my aim. It is only to undrmine the illusion that a Theists has built their tower on some immutable eternal and infallable base and are on the same table as everyone else in that they are using their human mind to make these arguments.

    Last point for you...

    My case here is not directed at only Atheists versis Theists but also Theists vs Theists. Say you got a Muslim cleric vs a Catholic priest. Both are going to point at their holy books and say "You can't argue with God!" They will both claim irrefutable absolute proof. But me, looking from the outside am thinking, "Nope you are just two humans having an argument with one another using your own reason to understand ancient works of literature created by other humans who wrote down thir versions of oral history that were told by some other human claiming divine inspiration. You will both have to stop relying on God and sort it out for yourselves as to which one is true using only the facculties incumunt on you as human beings.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  10. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  11. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn NY Fuggedaboutit
    Posts
    158
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Hi Sigfried,

    The Hebrew Bible is unique in its revelation concepts (when compared to any other religion on Earth). In short, G-d addresses the issues of "How do you know what Moses or another dude is saying came from G-d?". The issue is treated as a very valid one. G-d then goes about providing proof of his existence and laws directly to the masses without relying on faith alone.

    However, even once G-d is established, He doesn't spoon feed most of the truth to people. He would rather that people go through the process of asking questions of G-d. This makes your growth in life an accomplishment you can earn. So, for the most part, G-d sits back and allows you to debate and discover. That's what a good parent does.

    As to why Rabbis are considered to have more knowledge (or assumed to have correct knowledge) of G-d's will? Its like anything in life. If I am not a baker, and I want to know how to bake cake, I should ask a baker. Bakers spend a lot of time knowing and perfecting their craft, so I can consult them instead of risking reinventing the wheel.

    In that sense, due to study and experience, bakers and carpenters are absolutely not on equal footing when discussing bread. Bakers will know more than carpenters regarding bread. The same applies with Rabbis and G-d vs. a layman's knowledge. This will be true even if bakers, carpenters, and Rabbis are all fallible humans.

    However, in Judaism (and the Hebrew Bible) you get to argue with and question the Rabbis all the time!
    An idealist is willing to suffer for what they believe in.

    A fanatic is willing to make others suffer for what they believe in.

  12. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  13. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    Hi Sigfried,

    The Hebrew Bible is unique in its revelation concepts (when compared to any other religion on Earth). In short, G-d addresses the issues of "How do you know what Moses or another dude is saying came from G-d?". The issue is treated as a very valid one. G-d then goes about providing proof of his existence and laws directly to the masses without relying on faith alone.
    I don't know too much about the Hebrew Bible, but willing to learn. I would love to hear/see the proof you speak of

    I'm curious though, if God does provide proof that he exists AND cares how we live life, what is the continued need for faith?

    What purpose does faith serve?

    ---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    However, even once G-d is established, He doesn't spoon feed most of the truth to people. He would rather that people go through the process of asking questions of G-d. This makes your growth in life an accomplishment you can earn. So, for the most part, G-d sits back and allows you to debate and discover. That's what a good parent does.
    Ok, let's do!

  14. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    `
    Interesting OP and I am leaning persupositionalist.
    `
    Hello MindTrap,

    Your comment up there has a little age on it (Nov. 27, 2016) nonetheless
    I have some questions for you that relate to your statement.

    (1) Do you still lean toward Presuppositionalism or have you, since your
    comment, fully embraced it?

    (2) Will you share with me any thoughts you might have on VAN TILLIAN
    PRESUPPOSITIONALISM


    (3) And lastly, do you have any thoughts, that you will share with me, on the following:


    William Lane Craig, quoting Henry Dodwell, says:

    "Dodwell argues that matters of religious faith lie outside the determination of reason.
    God could not possibly have intended that reason should be the faculty to lead us to
    faith, for faith cannot hang indefinitely in suspense while reason cautiously weighs
    and reweighs arguments. The Scriptures teach, on the contrary, that the way to
    God is by means of the heart, not by means of the intellect. Faith is the gift of the
    Holy Spirit." __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 35

    Then Craig says a few pages later, "I think that Dodwell . . . [is] correct that,
    fundamentally, the way we know Christianity is true is by the self-authenticating
    witness of God's Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the
    experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical [truthful] and unmistakable . . . for him
    who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or
    evidence in order to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the
    Spirit of God . . ."__William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 43

    Clearly William Lane Craig, one of America's most popular and influential Christian
    Apologist, agrees with Henry Dodwell. Then earlier on page 39 of Reasonable Faith,
    Craig says that he agrees with Alvin Plantinga that belief in God is "both rational
    and warranted wholly apart from an evidental foundations for belief."

    Says Craig:
    "Alvin Plantinga has launched a sustained attack on theological rationalism.
    Plantinga maintains that belief in God and in the central doctrines of
    Christianity is both rational and warranted wholly apart from any evidential
    foundations for belief."__William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 39


    Then this:

    " . . . the role of rational argumentation in knowing Christianity to be
    true is the role of a servant. A person knows Christianity is true because
    the Holy Spirit tells him it is true, and while arguments and evidence can
    be used to support this conclusion, they cannot legitimately overrule
    it . . ." __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 51


    ". . .I'd say that with most people there's no need to use apologetics
    at all . . . " __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 57


    ________


    I am interested in any thoughts you might have on the above, and I ask
    as one who greatly admires the principles set forth above in the Craig
    quotes.

    By the way, I have read a lot of threads at ODN over the years and
    a large number of your posts as well, and have enjoyed and benefited
    from your offerings.



    `

  15. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  16. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    @ Jagg, thanks for all the kind comments. Sorry to hear that you had to read my posts

    Thanks for the questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by JAGG
    (1) Do you still lean toward Presuppositionalism or have you, since your
    comment, fully embraced it?
    My understanding of Presuppositionaslism has changed since that post. Before I saw it as a general attempt to bring focus to the underlying presuppositions we have, and pointing to how those are inconsistent with views that are forwarded. To that, I still belive in and try to do better to understand what those pressupositions are for each side.

    However, As I currently understand Presuppositionalism, I am not fond of of it and leaning away, but I readily admit that I am still mulling it over.


    My latest impression is being formed by this debate..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfJrwW9QLHQ
    And the indirect exchanges between WLC and James White.
    WLC = https://overcast.fm/+CBSoIjI0

    James White = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0hJizyan0Y
    (sorry James white's video is long, and I don't have the time stamp for when he actually starts to get around to addressing WLC)

    Basically, as I understand it, presuppositionalism is not in the business of engaging the intellect of their opponent.
    To me it is more a style of preaching then "debate". As sye says in the debate, he isn't trying to convince.https://youtu.be/lfJrwW9QLHQ?t=34m59s
    It also appears to reject a person as a "judge" of evidence. Basically saying we are not fit to do such a thing.


    I think both of those are the opposite of what debate and discussion "presuppose".
    I think in debate we are taking part in the "come let us reason together", and presuppositional appologetics denies that aspect can take place, and rejects it as valid because it "puts man as judge over G-d".


    Quote Originally Posted by JAGG
    I am interested in any thoughts you might have on the above, and I ask
    as one who greatly admires the principles set forth above in the Craig
    quotes.
    The part of me that agrees with Presuppositionalism, is that I believe God is working on the heart of everyone. My personal experience forces me to recognize that in the end, my good or bad argumentation is not what is going to bring someone to faith, though it may put a picture to them of what there is to believe in. So, there is defiantly a spiritual side to what is occurring in any given debate. This gets muddled up in the phrase "Faith is the gift of the holy spirit".
    To me that phrase is used in the same way that one would say "the president give me hope for our future" (or the inverse). Presuppositionalist seem to take that a very different way. Such to mean more like "My neighbor gave me his lawn-mower". I don't think Craig takes the latter understanding, given some of his Doctrine teaching podcasts, but I won't go so far as to say he agrees with my understanding of it.

    Further on faith, faith is about what we can't see, or don't posses. Like I have faith in the existence of heaven, but once one is there it is no longer faith. (pretty sure there is a bible verse on that concept, though not with heaven as the example).
    So, for example we must have faith that Christ existed, where as the disciples didn't have faith that Christ existed... they possessed him in a manner. Even our faith that He is the Christ is different, as Thomas saw and believed.. but we do not see, and yet believe.



    Finally, on Craigs approach to the topic, Craig makes the distinction between Knowing something and showing something.

    https://overcast.fm/+CBSoIjI0

    So how we "know things" is through the witness of the holy spirit to our spirit", how we show things to be true is through our reasoning faculties.


    As a sort of summary, I am developing many problems with presuppositionalism. I look forward to answering any other questions you may have. Thanks for reading, sorry you had to endure it all
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. Thanks JAGG thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  18. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ Jagg, thanks for all the kind comments.
    Twas from the heart --- I've read many a post at ODN over the years, and
    it was often difficult reading too, but I learned a lot and it was a blessing.
    (One thing I learned over here is that nobody ever wins or loses an
    argument . . . lol . . 'course the entire Internet is like that too.)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Thanks for the questions.
    My pleasure and thanks for taking the time to answer them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Basically, as I understand it, presuppositionalism is not in the business of engaging the intellect of their opponent.
    To me it is more a style of preaching then "debate". As Sye says in the debate, he isn't trying to convince.
    https://youtu.be/lfJrwW9QLHQ?t=34m59s
    It also appears to reject a person as a "judge" of evidence. Basically saying we are not fit to do such a thing.
    I believe most scholars would agree that Cornelius Van Til "is the originator of modern Presuppositional
    Apologetics" and is the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to presenting and explaining it.

    You mentioned Sye Ten Bruggencate. I do not intend to belittle Sye, but I have read and heard enough of
    Sye to conclude that he has "gone to seed" on some of Van Til's points and does not accurately present
    the entire Presuppositional Apologetical System. For example, I don't think Sye would agree with this:

    Start quote:
    "With Kuyper, Van Til believed that the Christian and the non-Christian have different ultimate standards,
    presuppositions that color the interpretation of every fact in every area of life.

    But with Warfield, he [Van Til] believed that a rational proof for Christianity is possible: "Positively
    Hodge and Warfield were quite right in stressing the fact that Christianity meets every legitimate
    demand of reason. Surely Christianity is not irrational. To be sure, it must be accepted on faith,
    but surely it must not be taken on blind faith. Christianity is capable of rational defense.[8]"

    And like Warfield, Van Til believed that the Holy Spirit will use arguments against unbelief as
    a means to convert non-believers.[9]" [This quote is in the Kuyper-Warfield Synthesis
    segment of the wiki article on Cornelius Van Til HERE]
    End quote.


    If you plan to ever pursue the study of Presuppositional Apologetics, I think you would be glad if you went
    straight to it's originator Van Til --- and the wiki article on him is a good enough portal to lead you to his
    works and main thoughts. Cornelius Van Til

    I'm certainly no authority on any of it, and I don't think anybody has "the final truth" on how best to approach
    Christian Apologetics.

    "Evidential apologetics or evidentialism is an approach to Christian apologetics emphasizing the use of evidence
    to demonstrate that God exists."__Off the web

    "Presuppositional Apologetics is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis
    for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other
    worldviews."__Off the web


    I think both systems have some truth and I make an effort to grab truth wherever I can find it. "All truth is God's
    truth" is one of my faith beliefs.

    I also believe that William Lane Craig and all the other Christian apologists make unintentional contradictory
    statement or at least seemingly contradictory statements when they present their findings on these issues -- I think
    Apologetics and Epistemology are very difficult areas and that its very easy to make apparent contradictions when
    one is trying to "root out the truth.


    "God in the Dock."__C.S. Lewis
    Some Evidential Apologists, it seems to me, agree with the modern man that its okay to put God in the Dock. I will never
    go along with that notion. Here is a quote I got from an acquaintance that explains what I mean:

    "The ancient man approached God (or even gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man
    the roles are reversed. He is the Judge and God is in the Dock. He [Mankind] is a kindly judge and if God has a
    reasonable defense for being the God that permits war, poverty, disease, servitude, etc he is ready to listen to it. The
    trail may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing here is that Man is on the Bench and God is in the Dock."
    __an acquaintance

    Me-no-never-gonna accept God in the Dock. I do not have to choose, but if I did have to choose, I would boldly and
    with locked-down Iron Will, choose Fideism before I would accept the God in the Dock thingy as described in that
    quote up there.

    Anyway, whether its Evidential Apologetics or Presuppositional Apologetics or Just Plain Ole Preaching, the
    truth of God goes forward. Christian Mouth worldwide runs somewhere 24/7/365 (thank God) and I fully intend
    to run mine right up to the last minute on the day that I croak . . . lol . . . Long Live John 3:16 . . . and I will
    do my best (I'm not good at it) presenting the so-called "evidences" to anybody who will listen just so I get
    an opportunity to "put God's truths" in front of their nose, by which I mean mostly the simple truths.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think in debate we are taking part in the "come let us reason together", and presuppositional appologetics
    denies that aspect can take place, and rejects it as valid because it "puts man as judge over G-d".
    They don't want to put "God in the Dock with Puny Man on the Bench playing the role of Judge."

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The part of me that agrees with Presuppositionalism, is that I believe God is working on the heart of everyone.
    Yes amen. Preach it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My personal experience forces me to recognize that in the end, my good or bad argumentation is not what is going to bring
    someone to faith
    Yah. What we call bad argumentation can be used by the Holy Spirit to regenerate the soul of the unbeliever. And maybe
    what some would call brilliant argumentation might not be thought of so highly by the Holy Spirit? That's possible. 'Course,
    only God knows about stuff like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    though it may put a picture to them of what there is to believe in.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, there is defiantly a spiritual side to what is occurring in any given debate.
    Yes indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think Craig takes the latter understanding, given some of his Doctrine teaching podcasts,
    but I won't go so far as to say he agrees with my understanding of it.
    I think highly of WLC and he has been a blessing. I also think he apparently contradicts himself
    in Reasonable Faith on the subject of my first post to you --- the WLC quotes I mean. Of course
    he would say, "No, just allow me to revise and extend my remarks and the supposed contradictions
    will vanish." And he might be right on that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, on Craigs approach to the topic, Craig makes the distinction between Knowing something
    and showing something. https://overcast.fm/+CBSoIjI0
    Yah. Craig hits that in his Reasonable Faith too. Btw, that was an interesting "listen", ie the audio I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So how we "know things" is through the witness of the holy spirit to our spirit", how we show things to be
    true is through our reasoning faculties.
    That works for God's people, those regenerated (Jh.3:3) --- I'm not sure it works on the unregenerated.

    There is a lot to say about them, and none of it is cheerful ;-) . . . For one thing Luther's point about
    the human intellect participating in The Fall in Genesis 3, is a true point. If you recognize man as having:
    (1) Body
    (2) Emotions
    (3) Volition (Will)
    (4) Intellect . . . then his Intellect strongly participated in The Fall and is just as corrupted as is his Emotions,
    his Body (that is dying) and his Volition. Yes his Intellect is just as corrupted and just as fallen as is his dying
    Body --- yet some Christian Apologists approach the unbelieving man as if his Intellect was not corrupted
    and as if it did NOT strongly participate in The Fall and in The Fall's corrupting Sin Principle.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As a sort of summary, I am developing many problems with presuppositionalism.
    I got problems with all of it. Either way you go, ya got problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I look forward to answering any other questions you may have.
    In all your time on the Internet presenting arguments (a $5 dollar word for reasons) for the truth of Christianity,
    to those we might could call Activist Thread Atheists, have you ever, even one time, had a single conversion to
    Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Thanks for reading, sorry you had to endure it all
    It was fun. Thank you for writing it up.

  19. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    @ Jagg..
    I pretty much agree and appreciate all that you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAGG
    That works for God's people, those regenerated (Jh.3:3) --- I'm not sure it works on the unregenerated.

    There is a lot to say about them, and none of it is cheerful ;-) . . . For one thing Luther's point about
    the human intellect participating in The Fall in Genesis 3, is a true point. If you recognize man as having:
    (1) Body
    (2) Emotions
    (3) Volition (Will)
    (4) Intellect . . . then his Intellect strongly participated in The Fall and is just as corrupted as is his Emotions,
    his Body (that is dying) and his Volition. Yes his Intellect is just as corrupted and just as fallen as is his dying
    Body --- yet some Christian Apologists approach the unbelieving man as if his Intellect was not corrupted
    and as if it did NOT strongly participate in The Fall and in The Fall's corrupting Sin Principle.
    I certainly treat (or really, really try) those I am debating as though they have ACCESS to reason, and can in fact be reasoned with.
    I don't think that is compatible with the kind of "total depravity" I see associated with presupositionalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAGG
    In all your time on the Internet presenting arguments (a $5 dollar word for reasons) for the truth of Christianity,
    to those we might could call Activist Thread Atheists, have you ever, even one time, had a single conversion to
    Christianity?
    I don't know, I haven't really kept up with all who have read what I write, I'm not even certain it would be for me to know. After all, some sow and some reap.
    To answer your question directly, not that I am aware of.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  20. Thanks JAGG thanked for this post
  21. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't know, I haven't really kept up with all who have read what I write, I'm not even
    certain it would be for me to know. After all, some sow and some reap.
    To answer your question directly, not that I am aware of.
    Good and wise answer, imo.

    Talk to you later . . .

  22. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  23. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;555360
    I don't know, I haven't really kept up with all who have read what I write, I'm not even certain it would be for me to know. After all, some sow and some reap.
    To answer your question directly, not that I am aware of.[/QUOTE]

    I would say you have probably adjusted some opinions, but to be able to change someone's mind in a conversation over the internet may be a lofty idea. I would say if you can get someone to at least reconsider long held ideas you have successfully stated your argument. It can take years to change a persons mind. Funny to look back and think of a comment someone made in your past that stuck with you and helped shape the person you are now...

    In my case though, I am not arguing to change somebody else's mind, I argue to challenge my own ideas. Although it appears I am not formal enough when debating you or Squatch as I am new to debating, I am trying to learn

    All of this completely off the topic at hand though, and an interesting topic that it is.

    ---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A small correction. Not that there is no logic, but that on Atheism we have no reason for it, or reason to think we have access to it.
    Apok once defined "logic" as "ordered thinking". If that is the case, why is God necessary for human's to be able to think in "ordered" way. As logic really isn't a thing, but more of a regulated, methodical process for thoughts to come to a conclusion.

    Probably human's greatest "tool" is to be able to remember the past and use it to predict the future. This would seem the basis of where logic started.

    How does God grant access to logic?
    Or how does the absence of God prevent us from thinking "logically" (in an ordered manner)?

    Or, are you using a different definition?

  24. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Apok once defined "logic" as "ordered thinking". If that is the case, why is God necessary for human's to be able to think in "ordered" way. As logic really isn't a thing, but more of a regulated, methodical process for thoughts to come to a conclusion.

    Probably human's greatest "tool" is to be able to remember the past and use it to predict the future. This would seem the basis of where logic started.

    How does God grant access to logic?
    Or how does the absence of God prevent us from thinking "logically" (in an ordered manner)?

    Or, are you using a different definition?
    Right. Good question.

    So, I agree with all that you quoted. The objection I am raising is a bit different.

    Namely, logic and thoughts deal with ideas. Such that idea X logically follows from idea Y.
    On the assumption of God, a mind can explain why a physical being would be granted access to ideas.

    On naturalism. we are purely physical in nature. We are a complex set of chemicals etc, and on that there is a gaping hole between chemical reactions, and ideas.
    There is simply no reason to think that chemical reactions would ever have access to the ideas, because ultimately the reason your chemicals brain says that x leads to y, is not because of the ideas, but because of how chemicals are dictated to react with each other.

    One attempt to bridge that gap has been to appeal to evolution, but evolution doesn't pick ideas, it picks outcomes. Such that, if a rabbit hides from the wolf because it desires to mate with it, and it thinks that hiding is the best way to mate (IE flawed logic) then evolution will select that. So again another gulf of separation.


    so how does God grant access to logic? .. Minds have access to logic and ideas. So to say that a mind granted another mind that access, has explanatory power.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  25. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right. Good question.

    So, I agree with all that you quoted. The objection I am raising is a bit different.

    Namely, logic and thoughts deal with ideas. Such that idea X logically follows from idea Y.
    On the assumption of God, a mind can explain why a physical being would be granted access to ideas.

    On naturalism. we are purely physical in nature. We are a complex set of chemicals etc, and on that there is a gaping hole between chemical reactions, and ideas.
    There is simply no reason to think that chemical reactions would ever have access to the ideas, because ultimately the reason your chemicals brain says that x leads to y, is not because of the ideas, but because of how chemicals are dictated to react with each other.

    One attempt to bridge that gap has been to appeal to evolution, but evolution doesn't pick ideas, it picks outcomes. Such that, if a rabbit hides from the wolf because it desires to mate with it, and it thinks that hiding is the best way to mate (IE flawed logic) then evolution will select that. So again another gulf of separation.


    so how does God grant access to logic? .. Minds have access to logic and ideas. So to say that a mind granted another mind that access, has explanatory power.
    Ok, but a whole human population is different than one rabbit. Human's remember. And learn from each other. Trial and error. That is how logic would come to pass. You see some one fishing. They catch a fish and you don't. What did they do you didn't. Did they use bait. Try that bait and another bait. See which catches more fish. Divert the stream to a pond and chase fish in. This is ordered thought on a simple level.

    Why could this not occur naturally?

  26. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On naturalism. we are purely physical in nature. We are a complex set of chemicals etc, and on that there is a gaping hole between chemical reactions, and ideas.
    There is simply no reason to think that chemical reactions would ever have access to the ideas, because ultimately the reason your chemicals brain says that x leads to y, is not because of the ideas, but because of how chemicals are dictated to react with each other.


    I think I was too focused on your rabbit example, I think I may see your point now.

    So at the synapse level in the brain, reactions are taking place, back and forth from electrical to chemical, chemical to electrical, all the time. Since there are a finite number of chemical reaction that can occur, thoughts are necessarily limited by these chemical reactions.

    Am I getting closer

  27. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  28. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    One attempt to bridge that gap has been to appeal to evolution, but evolution doesn't pick ideas, it picks outcomes. Such that, if a rabbit hides from the wolf because it desires to mate with it, and it thinks that hiding is the best way to mate (IE flawed logic) then evolution will select that.
    Evolution will certainly not select that. If a rabbit thinks that hiding is the best way to mate then that rabbit is less likely to mate than a rabbit who thinks the best way to mate is to go out and look for other rabbits to mate with.

    In evolution, traits that help one survive and procreate are the ones that are passed to the next generation. And within the trait-passing, certain mutations occur and if the mutation is something that helps one survive/procreate better than others, then one is more likely to pass that mutation to the next generation (and bad mutations are not likely to be passed on). So the only way that a rabbit that rabbits will evolve into animals that hide because they think it's a good way to mate is if hiding actually does help them procreate better than their current method of finding mates. If that doesn't happen (and it wouldn't) then a rabbit that mutates into having that incorrect thought is not likely to pass it on to future generations.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The gods that came before god.
    By Kong in forum Religion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2011, 11:47 AM
  2. Aliens are gods?
    By Oh snap in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2008, 05:03 AM
  3. American Gods.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Book Club Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 13th, 2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Jesus, was he gods son?
    By Bf55 in forum Religion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 1st, 2005, 10:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •