christian ammunition

scmike2 says:

Hey Roo! Thank you for the recommendations with regards to the word count and the alternate means available for holding our discussion. However, I don’t think that will be necessary, as you and I should be able wrap this up somewhat succinctly given the results of our most recent exchange:

I said:“”You have conceded that, as a Christian, I have a logically possible avenue to account for certainty in that the God of the Bible (Who knows everything could reveal things to human beings so that we can know for certain that they are true).””

You responded: This is true,

Thank you again for your honesty with regards to your concession here! Just to clarify, this means that we both agree that the God of the Bible (which is the only one I am arguing for here) provides a logically possible avenue for our ability to know things with certainty (via His Divine Revelation). On the other hand, it has been shown that atheism does not and cannot provide us with a rational foundation for knowledge or even the basic reliability of our senses and reasoning (unless you really do want to adopt the position that it is perfectly acceptable to use viciously circular arguments as logical proofs to support our claims—I don’t recommend it, though). Indeed, this is a very important point to remember as we examine the exchange further.

You went on to say: “but by default, I have also conceded that of all entities that (directly or indirectly as you mentioned) could use that as their justification as well.”

However, there are several problems with this that render it an irrational (and false) argument. Namely:

1) It commits the fallacy of ‘hasty generalization’ since it does not necessarily follow that, just because the basis of one theistic worldview is logically possible, then all others are too (since there could be (are) other factors that would render the others illogical and, subsequently, impossible). You simply don’t have enough information to make such a sweeping generalization.

The claim you’ve posited is also a fallacious ‘irrelevant thesis’, since you haven’t really presented any logically defensible proof that any other entity, apart from the Christian God, exists and could provide us with rational justification for our ability to know things for certain (nor is anyone here arguing that they can, except you, which baffles me as to why you would think conceding to your own argument would be a meaningful or rational thing to do. Mental hiccup, maybe?). Sure, you’ve asserted that they can, but you haven’t even begun to provide a rational defense for that claim (in fact, quite the opposite; please keep reading).

2) You have effectively been reduced to absurdity when asked to account for the certainty of knowledge (and other preconditions of intelligibility) within your professed non-theistic worldview, which renders it an irrational (and false) one. Yet, you maintain that theism in general can and does provide a logical basis for our knowing things with certainty, etc. As such, you have indeed abandoned atheism in the process of attempting to defend it—I congratulate you for that! Progress! : )

However, the ‘generic theism’ argument will not save the day here, as you have claimed that any ‘omnipotent’ being must, therefore, be able to contradict themselves (i.e. lie) and even do the logically impossible as part of the scope of their omnipotence—(even though you have not (and cannot) justify that assumption regarding those characteristics being a necessary requirement of omnipotence, for numerous reasons; the least of which being that you could never experience or observe the universal scope and nature of omnipotence). Yet, you have not ever shown logically how a deity which has the ability to deceive us also then provides us with any rational basis whatsoever for our ability to know things with certainty (especially since these characteristics are mutually exclusive (contradictory) to one another and, therefore, renders the proposition false).

3) You HAVE conceded that the God of the Bible (again, the only one I am (and have been) arguing for here) could reveal some things to us such that we can be certain of their truth. It therefore follows that He could (and does) reveal to us some things about His omnipotent and omniscient nature such that we can know with genuine certainty that He is not deceiving us and that the scope of omnipotence does not include the ability to contradict Himself, lie, or to do the logically impossible (since logic is an aspect of His self-consistent character and nature). As such, we can be guaranteed that each of those things is absolutely true and cannot be false. This provides me with a rational basis for knowing that your belief and assertions about the nature of ‘omnipotence’ (and the things it encompasses) are false, and, therefore, substantiates the claim that Biblical Christianity (specifically) is the ONLY true worldview, by the impossibility of the contrary (since the contrary (positions like atheism and ‘generic theism’, for instance) cannot be rationally defended and ends in absurdity/falsehood).

4) In order to compete with the Christian claim, there would have to exist a known, competing objectively verifiable source of revelation that is internally consistent, makes sense of abstract, universal, invariants, comports with reality, is scientifically, prophetically, and historically accurate, and of course, which provides a basis for the certainty of knowledge. Yes, I know that you have previously voiced some complaints against my claim that the Bible meets (and exceeds) each of these criteria, however, it is now known that you were doing so from a demonstrably false position. This, of course makes those complaints without any merit or foundation since they have no grounding in knowledge, truth, or logic. They, therefore, would warrant no refutation since such assertions carry no academic value or purpose in rational discourse.

Thank you again for your time and the cordial tone of your comments throughout this discourse—it is very refreshing. Feel free to respond to this post, however, in the interest of intellectual honesty and as a token of good faith, I must request that any forthcoming post(s) from you should first acknowledge the irrationality of both the atheist worldview and also that of the ‘generic theism’ position you have proposed here, as the result of their having been effectively reduced to absurdity and, therefore, soundly refuted. With respect, anything less than that would constitute a decline into further irrationality on your part and would be, quite frankly, an exercise in dishonesty. I trust I needn’t be concerned about any of that, though, as I fully expect you to do the honorable thing here (as the sure sign of a rational individual is a deep desire to embrace truth and to reject that which is demonstrably false).

P.S. By the way, I now remember where I have previously seen many of the arguments you are using: Believe it or not, there was an atheist on the debate.org site, of all places, named Faustian who had just recently put forth many of the same claims that you have made (regarding our ability to learn, etc.) as support for his non-Christian worldview. I wouldn’t engage him when he brought them up, though, since he had admitted previously that he couldn’t know anything for certain, but then continued to contradict himself by making knowledge claims (déjà vu’?). Man, what a coincidence, that you would show up with many of those same arguments on this blog post of mine which contains the link to the very discussion in which he first made those devastating admissions regarding HIS position! Too bad he isn’t here to see the end result of the arguments that he erroneously believed would help salvage his position……might’ve done him some good. Oh well. 😉

LikeLike

scmike2 says:

Roo,

You said: Regarding “Faustian”, that is where I am coming from, it was a good question.

Correction: it would only have been a ‘good’ question, if he had not already conceded that he professes a worldview in which he can’t know anything for certain (which is self-refuting and absurd, by the way). ‘Learning’ alludes to knowledge, which implies truth (both of which are certain by definition). Stating that one can’t be certain about anything and then arguing as if one can be certain about things, is self-contradictory and not worthy of a rational rebuttal. By the way, I did give him ample opportunity to abandon his stance on this, but, unfortunately (and not surprisingly, really) he refused to do so.

You said: If man can learn, indeed, a lot of what you are asking is moot.

Your ‘if’ is the problem, though. The concept of ‘learning’ makes sense within the Christian worldview (as you have conceded) since there is a rational basis for the ability of human beings to know things with certainty (which is what learning alludes to) via both direct and indirect revelation from One Who knows everything. However, as you have demonstrated previously, the concept of knowledge cannot be rationally accounted for otherwise, as you are reduced to arguing the equivalent of ‘I can know things for certain because I can know things for certain’, which simplified further is reduced to ‘I know because I know’. Now, I know you’re a nice person and all, but there is no way you would ever let me get by with positing arguments like that (i.e. ‘God exists because He exists’, ‘I know God exists because I know God exists’—which are not my arguments, by the way) and rightfully so, as they are viciously circular and irrational.

Because you have no rational basis for knowing things with certainty in your worldview, this gives you no foundation whatsoever upon which to rest any of your knowledge claims (such as those about the reliability of your senses and reasoning, what omnipotence means, or that you even have the ability to learn anything in the first place, for instance), and reduces your position to one of blind faith (which is really a form of superstition when you get right down to it).

You said: In coming through other aspects, there were members of other faiths, another prong of my argument, which is why I mention them, that weren’t really commented on, and one or two out of hand dismissals. You have a variety of links that point to a variety of places, and many of your opponents are answering your immediate questions, but you simply redirect back to this point:

“That is, since you have claimed that you only know things via learning them (through experience), then on what grounds do you assume that any definition you put forth holds universally true (in all places and at all times), since you could never experience the entire universe to learn that? If you don’t know that the definitions hold true everywhere and at all times, then you are forced to admit that you only believe they do (on blind faith) and that there are possible times and places in which they do not hold true.”

That is correct. The question is simply a means of exposing the absurdity of those who argue against the possibility of universal truth (i.e. certainty), and then try to live and argue as if they do know things to be universally true. Think about the self-refuting nature of one claiming that ALL knowledge must be gained by learning via experience and observation, for instance (sound familiar?). The very claim itself cannot be true, since the one making it clearly has not observed or experienced ALL knowledge. It therefore follows, that, since they could not (and have not) done so, then they don’t really know it, but are simply making an unjustified (and unjustifiable) faith-based claim. This places their position in the realm of subjective opinion/arbitrary conjecture–neither of which carry any academic merit as a logical proof.

You said: Agnophyl (spelling?) was another individual that clearly knew his academics, but you routinely moved to the philosophy of the situation, despite asking direct scientific questions.

Agnophilo was a very bright individual who ‘claimed’ to know a lot of things. Unfortunately he espoused an atheistic/evolutionary worldview which does not allow for the existence of knowledge. In other words, if the position he was arguing for was true, then it would necessarily have to be false, since he could not possibly arrive at truth in a worldview that does not allow for it. This is why he was ultimately reduced to absurdity and had to abandon his naturalistic view in order to defend it (positing (without any objective support) that Allah had given him recent revelations of things, etc., if memory serves).

Besides, surely it is appropriate to challenge the knowledge claims of those who wish to use them as arguments to support their positions, in order to find out HOW they know the things they claim to be true, (especially since that’s what rational argumentation is in the first place), no? Simply accepting something as true with no good reason for doing so is the very definition of irrationality, after all.

You said: A definition need not hold true at all times, if it is still aptly describing the current scenario.

One must ultimately ask you, though, if that statement (claim) about definitions holds true at all times and in all places? If you are claiming that it does, then how could you possibly know that absent possessing universal knowledge or having revelation from One who does? If it does not hold true in all places and at all times, then it follows that there are times and places where it is not true. I would then follow up by asking what your basis is for assuming that right here and right now is not one of those times and places? If you are honest, you would then have to admit that you have no basis for assuming that at all, apart from blind faith. Again, this all goes back to the fact that you are attempting to reason and function in God’s universe while at the same time embracing a worldview which rejects Him. The end result of this is always absurdity (on this side) and eternal damnation (on the next). Not very wise at all.

You said: Should it fall outside that scenario, its quite possible that some other definition more appropriately describes it. Water to ice to vapor is the most immediate example I can think of, at its most basic, its all the same thing, and if it wasn’t that thing, it would be something else, needing or fitting another definition.

Same questions as above regarding this knowledge claim.

You said: “In any case, if experiencing all of creation is required to “know” something,”

It isn’t if one holds to the Christian worldview in which Divine Revelation is truly a possibility. We have both agreed that it is, remember?

You said: “your argument becomes self defeating as well, as you haven’t done the same, and cannot know for certain if the entity in question in your logical model is indeed lying to you.”

This is where I would normally challenge such a claim to see what the basis for it is. If you hadn’t already exposed to me that your position is irrational and based upon viciously circular arguments, I would have asked: are you certain of this? And then: If so, how? However, based upon our prior discourse, I know that you are not certain of it and that it is simply an unjustified assertion on your part. Hopefully you’re following the logic here?

You stated: “It says it won’t, of course, but without experiencing all of creation, or knowing for certain at all places and times, you are taking something you cannot be sure of it lying or not”

Um, not if ‘He’ has revealed that ‘He’ is not lying to us such that we can absolutely certain that ‘He’ is telling the truth (which ‘He’ has and is). You have already conceded that it is possible for God to do so, much earlier in the discussion, and are now behaving inconsistently with that prior admission with regards to this. That type of behavioral inconsistency is unbecoming for you and does not bode well at all for your position.

You said: (even though the Biblical evidence shows it can change its mind, and may distribute a diluting influence of which you may be the subject of) on faith, too.”

Actually, I typically don’t do Bible exegesis with those who deny the Authority of Scripture, given that they tend to misrepresent both the meaning and the intent of the text due to their presuppositional bias that the Bible is not what it claims to be. This is a very good example of that (i.e attempting to ‘force’ a particular erroneous meaning upon certain texts in Scripture where clearly they do not belong).

You see, that’s the real issue here. You and I have the same evidence to examine (such as the Bible, for instance), yet we arrive at two totally opposing conclusions about it. Why is that? It’s because we have two totally different starting points (presuppositions) that form the basis of our respective worldviews (mine being that God exists and that the Bible is His inspired Word and yours being that God does not exist and the Bible is not what it claims to be). The question then becomes: which of our positions is rationally defensible and provides us with a logically sound, internally consistent (non-contradictory) basis for the necessary preconditons of intelligibility within our worldview. The answer to that question should be obvious by now, Roo, but in case it isn’t—-the answer is that the ONLY the Christian worldview does so by the impossibility of the contrary. That is, it is only because the Bible is true that we have any foundation whatsoever for logic, truth, knowledge the basic reliability of our senses and reasoning, or for any other preconditions necessary for making sense of anything. That is why no non-Christian worldview is able to account for or rationally defend the existence of any of those things, as we have seen.

You said: How is one position more rational that another in such a circumstance?

Because one is false (as it is internally inconsistent) while the other is true (and logically sound). I trust I don’t have to point out which is which at this point?

You said: “Were I to discredit you by stating you are wrong because you are following the advice of an entity that is shown to cast chaos and dispersion, how intellectually honest would I be?”

Well, since what you have described is not possible, I would say ‘not very intellectually honest at all’ (especially since you are now (and have been) in the very unenviable position of both affirming and denying the existence of your Creator—the God of the Bible—at the same time, via even attempting to put forth any argument against Him). Again, not very wise.

You said: “Secondly, were that person then to continue to follow that entity’s advice, and call ME irrational, how can the subject of such advice know, for certain, they they are not the subject of such chaos or dilution?”

By the impossibility of the contrary. Your very question would be meaningless, otherwise. Besides, you have already conceded the possibility that the Christian God could reveal to us that we are not the subjects of chaos or dilution such that we can be certain that it is true. You seem to be waffling on this point here in an attempt to keep from acknowledging what you simply don’t want to admit. Again, I urge you to do the rational thing and not continue rejecting the truth simply because you happen not to like it.

You said: “but why can’t ‘relying upon one’s conclusions to support their premises’ be a valid means of arriving at truth in YOUR worldview? ” — because it can be used to prove anything.

Since you’ve already shown that you have no basis for claiming this to be true in your worldview, I would normally dismiss it off the cuff as just another unsubstantiated (blind faith) claim. However, I would like to help you honestly think through these issues. Therefore, my response to your claim, for such purposes, is: Why not? What absolutely forbids this according to your worldview and how do you know for certain that it necessarily applies at all places and times?

Again, you’ve never told how you account for any immaterial, universal, objective standard of logic, by which people SHOULD conduct their thinking and reasoning, in your worldview. Hopefully you can now see that when you appeal to such concepts, you are ‘borrowing’ them from the Christian worldview since they cannot be coherently accounted for otherwise (after all, what is a universal law in an **allegedly** constantly changing, materialistic universe formed via the mindless processes of time and chance?). As I have stated in the past, borrowing concepts from the Christian worldview–which cannot possibly exist in your own—in order to argue against it, is woefully self-refuting and irrational in the highest degree. You’re better than that.

You said: “Hence, why I mention a variety of other pantheons. They, too, should be given the ability to have elements of their character described after the fact,”

Why SHOULD they be given this and says who?

You alleged: “and they, too, are making use of the same logical rationale for their ability.
Your entity in question, however, is exempt from that scrutiny. Why?

Tell me which one you believe in as a true logical foundation for knowledge, etc. and provide your OBJECTIVE proof to support the claim—I will then be happy to show you why. Otherwise, I am forced to conclude that you are again only seeking to divert attention away from your own position and its logical deficiencies. After all, why else would you continue to abandon your own position by asserting the validity of unargued for positions that contradict it and which neither of us even believe to be true in the first place? This is very inconsistent and also devastating to your position, Roo.

I said: “Regarding omnipotence, you continue to state that an omnipotent being can ‘do anything it wants’, however, you ignored the irrational consequences of this line of reasoning.”

You replied: that is correct. Omnipotence is an irrational concept, it stands to reason that it can perform irrational things.

If I thought you had a logical foundation for this belief, I would simply ask you how you know that your statement about omnipotence is true and we would see (yet again) that you don’t, you only BELIEVE (on blind faith) that it is—huuuuuge difference. With due respect, Roo, what is that unjustified assertion (i.e. opinion) to me?

You said: Omnipotence defies understanding. If an omnipotent entity can conjure the entire universe from nothing, it has already don’t something irrational from the onset.

Why? Because you say so? Just for the sake of helping you better see the illogical nature of what you are doing here, I will ask you to answer these next two questions about your claim as an exercise that may prove beneficial for that purpose. The questions are: What is your basis for this belief and what is the objective, absolute standard of logic by which this would be irrational?

You said: Regarding the questions about my invented deities, or those currently worshiped, you asked how it can do something, and I answered “it/they have omnipotence”. I feel as though that should answer anything regarding how they did something, it is within the ability of something “all powerful”.

However, this once again leads to consequences that you will not want to accept. In addition to the other reasons I gave you for why omnipotence as you are defining it is not possible and false, here is yet another:

If your definition of ‘omnipotence’ includes the ability of a deity to contradict itself, then it follows that the deity could be both ‘omnipotent’ (as you have defined it) and also ‘not omnipotent’ (as you have defined it) at the same time and in the same way. Since the definition of omnipotence that I have put forth equates to ‘not-omnipotence’ by your standards, that means that it is, in fact, perfectly valid as a description of one of the (contradictory) natures of that proposed deity. However, you are arguing (without basis) as if my definition is not at all valid (true) and that yours is. If you truly believed what you say you do, you would have argued that both definitions (which are mutually exclusive opposites of one another) are true at the same time and in the same way (which, of course, is absurd). Once again, if your claim regarding ‘omnipotence’ (as you have defined it) were true, it would also necessarily be false, therefore, it is false.

I previously said: “”Then I can just posit that God exists and the Bible is true because God exists and the Bible is true as my justification, and it would necessarily be true by that standard and you lose any grounds for arguing against it.””

You responded: “I mean this in the most cordial tone: that is what you are doing anyways, and is not similar to why my premise was.”

You cordial tone is duly noted and much appreciated! I disagree with your allegation, however, and my simple challenges to help you see the problems with your claim would be: How do you know for certain that this is what I’m doing and why SHOULD it absolutely not be done according to your worldview?

You concluded with: Intelligent beings have senses
Intelligent beings can learn.
Intelligent beings can learn from their senses.

What part of that is circular? Each of those premises is something we agree on, and the conclusion is not required to be true for the premises to work.

Actually, they are not a problem at all in the Christian worldview, since there is a rational basis to believe that those propositions are true and logical. For your worldview, however, the problems with your claims are manifold:

At this point, Roo, you really have nowhere else to go with this, however, I cannot force you to surrender your irrational position in exchange for the truth. I can only expose the irrationality of what you are professing to believe about God and the Bible and hope that you will come to your senses and submit to the Truth—which is where the absurdity ends and true wisdom and knowledge begin, since the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of both (Proverbs 1:7 & 9:10). Please understand that the responses here are for your benefit, consideration, and clarification. They are not to be taken as an indication that the topic at hand is still being argued, as that ended with the prior refutations of your professed positions (that you disappointingly refused to acknowledge per my request. I forgive you, though!) and the concessions you made regarding the Christian position. Take care!

LikeLike

scmike2 says:

Roo,

Normally in these types of scenarios, I stop entertaining knowledge claims from the individual once it is exposed that they have zero foundation for knowing anything in their worldview (a la Faustian). However, in this case, I think it beneficial to help guide you in honestly thinking through these issues via further illustrating the errors you are making here. Please keep in mind, that the argument ended when you revealed that the basis of your position(s) was an irrational one. Please refer back to our prior comments where I pointed out the fallacies you have committed here. I would welcome your honest acknowledgement of those errors as a token that you are arguing in good faith, both for my benefit, and for those intellectually honest readers who may read this exchange in the future.

Now, regarding your comments:

“It you refuse to open up the evidence to your claims for accurate criticism, then “Actually, I typically don’t do Bible exegesis with those who deny the Authority of Scripture,” is a horrible stance to take.”

Actually, I’ve just found via experience that it is a colossal waste of time to accept Biblical exegesis/ textual criticism from those who cannot account for the validity of the senses, reasoning, and objective logical standard that they employ to perform any textual analysis in the first place (as they are borrowing concepts that can only be justified via the truth of the Bible in order to argue against the truth of the Bible. Again woefully self-refuting and highly irrational arguments do not necessitate a rational response).

In addition, one would ultimately have to ask you to logically justify your assertion that this is a ‘horrible stance to take’. What OBJECTIVE, binding logical standard is that based upon? How do you account for that standard? Why does it necessarily apply to anyone (like me for instance)? If this is just your opinion, please state it as such and withdraw the claim.

I said: “as you have demonstrated previously, the concept of knowledge cannot be rationally accounted for otherwise, as you are reduced to arguing the equivalent of ‘I can know things for certain because I can know things for certain’,”

You responded: “that is inherent as to what that statement means.”

And if I asked you how you know THAT (or anything else) for certain, your argument (in its simplest form) would be again reduced to ‘I know because I know’, which is no argument at all. No offence, Roo, but the fact that you can’t/won’t acknowledge that fact is mind boggling to me. Remember, it is the Biblical position that those who deny the God of the Bible do so as a means of suppressing the truth that has been revealed to them about His existence (Romans 1:18-22). Clinging to an irrational position simply to avoid acknowledging that which you do not wish to acknowledge is the very epitome of ‘suppressing the truth’ (the extreme opposite of rational behavior).

“If an intelligent being can learn, you now have accounting of where such knowledge came from. The concept of learning makes sense in the Christian world view doesn’t mean it becomes the sole domain of said world view, such is not neccessary if an intelligent being can learn, which has already been something we agreed on.”

Two things for your benefit:

2) Since the justification(s) you’ve posited to support your knowledge claim(s) here is/are absurd (e.g. ‘I know because I know’) each of these claims is reduced to specious arbitrary conjecture, based upon no logical rationale whatsoever. I am pleased with that outcome, even if you arbitrarily refuse to acknowledge it.

“This should also apply to your world view, divinely revealed knowledge or not.”

Why SHOULD it apply? What is the objective, binding standard by which anyone SHOULD do anything with regards to their behavior, thinking, and reasoning according to your worldview? Again, if this is ultimately just your opinion, please clarify it as such and retract the claim from this discussion.

I said: “Because you have no rational basis for knowing things with certainty in your worldview, this gives you no foundation whatsoever upon which to rest any of your knowledge claims ”

You responded: “This is of course your opinion.”

Thank you for THAT opinion, Roo (I’m sure I can find a place for it with all the rest). 😉

The saving grace here, however, is that there now exists an objective record of our discussion here which can be examined by any intellectually honest reader to see which of us has provided a rational basis for the things we claim to know and which of us has not. That is one of the primary benefits of public forums, such as this, that I am most grateful for, since not all who engage in these types of discussions ***ahem*** are interested in finding the truth, but would simply wish to argue against a position that they happen not to like, with no regard for remaining rational in their argumentation (and with no desire to acknowledge the errors in their reasoning when pointed out to them).

“Not knowing specifically the chemistry behind a primer and bullet makes does not exclude one from being a marksman. More to the point: it has been accounted for.”

However, espousing a worldview which does not allow for the existence of ‘primers’ and ‘bullets’ (or firearms in general for that, matter) while at the same time utilizing them, would be highly irrational, wouldn’t you say? Surely it would then be appropriate to ask such a person how they explain the gun they are using if they profess a position which does not allow for the possibility of guns, no? That is the equivalent of what you are doing here, Roo. Now, imagine what you would think of one who behaved in such a way, and you will better understand my thoughts about your behavior right now.

“You are just immediately usurping “learning” into Christendom after realizing the implications. God was not necessary in the conditions of learning.”

Too late, Roo. Not only have you already demonstrated that your basis for that claim is an irrational one (which makes it false to begin with), you have conceded that the God of the Bible does account for our ability to know things with certainty. In summary, of the two respective positions represented here, only one has been found to provide a rationally defensible basis for the certainty of knowledge (or any of the other preconditions of intelligibility) as this record (including your concessions that Christianity can (and does) so) shows. I can live with that.

“Re Agno, he answered your questions, sir. You changed the scope because you didn’t like the answers.”

Again, the fact that one does not like having the basis of their knowledge claims challenged does not mean that it should not be. In fact, the very nature of rational discourse demands it! Besides, that’s really what the debate is ultimately about—the validity of our respective worldviews and whether they are true. We can present ‘evidence’ to support our respective positions all day long, but the problem is we all interpret the evidence presented to us via the respective presuppositions that form the basis of our worldview, therefore, in order to get anywhere in the discussion, an internal critique of our worldviews is necessary to see how and if it is internally consistent (comports with) with those presuppositions. In Agno’s case, he simply could not justify the (blind faith) claims he was making in his evolutionary worldview—many of which he admitted came from ‘off the tope of his head’, which reduced his position to absurdity. Can I help it if he chose to argue the absurd? What you should be more concerned about is his (and your) refusal to abandon such positions when they are shown to be demonstrably false. That is very troubling to me, at least.

“If you want to have an evolutionary debate, then the evidence should be about fossil records, current developments, carbon dating, and other such empirical evidence.”

Perhaps this well help you see the problem with that position: Why, from a strictly atheistic/evolutionary worldview, SHOULD that be the case? What objective, universal standard necessarily dictates this and why is one not free to deviate from that standard if they so desire?

You see, the most evolution could ever produce is that which ‘IS’. I’d really like to see how you logically get from that which ‘IS’ to that which ‘SHOULD BE’. This was the fatal flaw is Agno’s arguments, and, with due respect, given all your professed appreciation for ‘learning’ things, I had hoped that you would have at least observed his errors and learned not to repeat them. Perhaps I was hoping for too much?

I said: “Besides, surely it is appropriate to challenge the knowledge claims of those who wish to use them as arguments to support their positions, in order to find out HOW they know the things they claim to be true”

You answered: But not the Bible. See why its a horrible tack?

Ignoring, for the moment, the arbitrariness (and subsequent meaninglessness) of that claim, what you’re missing here is the fact that you’re trying to put the horse before the cart. That is, in order to have a meaningful discussion, we both need to have a logically defensible basis for the very preconditions for holding the discussion (truth, knowledge, laws of logic, morality, the reliability of our senses and reasoning, etc.). While you have conceded that Christianity provides one, you have not (because you cannot) provided one of your own. As such, there is nothing to argue, as we are both in agreement with the Christian claim—the only logical one that has been provided here.

I said: “It isn’t if one holds to the Christian worldview in which Divine Revelation is truly a possibility. We have both agreed that it is, remember?”

You replied: “In a logic application for something with omnipotence, sure. However such a thing actually having omnipotence was up to you to demonstrate,”

Did that (by the impossibility of the contrary). Next.

“and the existence of such an entity in the first place was never agreed upon.”

You are agreeing with it right now by your precommitment that you have the ability to know things with certainty after having demonstrated that the contrary position cannot account for that ability. As such, this is a crystal clear demonstration of the impossibility of the contrary (your agreement notwithstanding).

“You simply asked if X had omnipotence, could it do something. The immediate reply was ANYTHING that has omnipotence could do that,”

Unfortunately, though, you failed to ever tell how the ability of a deity to be both omnipotent (as you have defined) and not omnipotent (as you defined) translates into the human ability to know things with certainty. Not to mention the fact that you lose any justification at all for believing in the existence of universal laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction), since contradictions are not absolutely forbidden (and in fact are perfectly valid) in such a universe. As such, if your claim were true, it would also necessarily be false as well. Therefore (once again), it is false. Can’t make it any clearer to you than that.

“which in retrospect I needed to be more clear on to elaborate that.”

No offence, but I won’t hold my breath for you to offer logical support for the logically unsupportable. Again, such a view undermines the very existence of universal logical laws and is, therefore, the very definition of an illogical position.

I asked: Why SHOULD they be given this and says who?”

You said: You, because its what your doing with the God of the thing I am not allowed to critique, but you draw your evidence from.

However, I’ve already shown you why borrowing standards from my worldview (which cannot possibly exist in your own), in order to argue against it, does not help your position at all. In fact, it destroys your position, since such behavior is self-refuting. Fine by me.

I asked: “After all, why else would you continue to abandon your own position by asserting the validity of unargued for positions that contradict it and which neither of us even believe to be true in the first place? ”

You said: “To demonstrate how easily is to self validate with nonexistant entities.”

I am happy to see you also concede that the entities, you have been appealing to (in your ‘generic theism’ arguments) as true (real) foundations for knowledge, etc., do not exist. As such, they cannot possibly be the basis for anything that exists, and, therefore, are not a logically defensible foundation for knowledge, etc. (as you have previously claimed). Guess that settles it then. In summary: neither ‘generic theism’ or atheism can possibly be true, while we have both agreed that Christianity can be. I am pleased to have yet another demonstration of the impossibility of the contrary(ies) here on this thread!!

“Simply invent more traits as needed, reinterpret scripture as needed, when it would be far far far easier to simply demonstrate the entity in question. When you ask a person to show you something, interpretive philosophical questions aren’t demonstrating what is asked, and it seems as though that is all you have right now, since I can’t even bring up the Tome you are arguing from as demonstration that your evidence is flawed.”

Frankly, I see no reason to discuss the validity of any evidence (especially the Bible) with someone who has admitted that they hold to a worldview in which the preconditions for proving anything via evidence (logic, truth, knowledge, etc.) are not possible. Gotta crawl before you can walk, Roo. If your foundation is warped and irrational, then the best thing you can do is to abandon it for one which is true. That’s up to you, though.

You said: Omnipotence defies understanding. If an omnipotent entity can conjure the entire universe from nothing, it has already don’t something irrational from the onset.

I challenged with: “Why? Because you say so?”

You dodged the challenge and just arbitrarily asserted: The only reason that question would need to be asked is if you feel its rational for anything to be able to conjure matter or energy from void beyond omnipotence. I am sure such is not the case.

I appreciate your thoughts here, Roo. However, I must remind you that I am only interested in discussing the things we both know to be true and HOW we are able to do so (not what you believe to be true absent any logical justification whatsoever). I do hope you’ll keep that in mind.

I asked: “What is your basis for this belief and what is the objective, absolute standard of logic by which this would be irrational?”

You did not answer, but responded with: in the process of learning, my senses have never witnessed such a conjuration. I have never seen an entity that could boast such a claim and follow through. I have never seen such a thing done with or without the presence of such entity. In asking around on such cases, people have seen fantastic and impressive things, but their experience is much the same as mine.

Again, solely for your benefit as you think through these issues:

1) How do you know that your senses and reasoning are valid and providing you with reliable information to begin with? If your answer is anything resembling the viciously circular ‘I know because I know’ or ‘I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid’, please spare yourself the humiliation and don’t worry about answering the question.

2) Must ALL knowledge come from observation and/or experience? If so, please tell where you have observed/experienced ALL knowledge to have learned that to be true. Yes, I know you can’t answer this, which makes your complaints above unjustifiable, but I think it is beneficial to solidify the fact that you don’t really believe what you claim to about how knowledge is gained, both for you and for those reading along. These are the types of behavioral inconsistencies that definitely reveal that you know that God exists, but are only suppressing that truth to avoid accountability to Him (Romans 1:18-22).

I said: “If your definition of ‘omnipotence’ includes the ability of a deity to contradict itself, then it follows that the deity could be both ‘omnipotent’ (as you have defined it) and also ‘not omnipotent’ (as you have defined it) at the same time and in the same way.”

You said: Sure it could.

Which necessarily means it also couldn’t, so it can’t. QED.

Again, if you truly believe what you say you do, then you also don’t truly believe what you say you do, since contradictions are perfectly acceptable in your worldview. This also leads to the absurd possibility that you both exist and don’t exist and the same time and in the same way. Roo, as much as I hate to see you reduced to such absurdity, I am very encouraged with the overwhelming credibility you have given here to the truth of Biblical Christianity by demonstrating exactly what the contrary looks like (YIKES!!!!!) . I am grateful to you for that!

Regarding the existence of logical laws you claimed: 2)Product of man’s creativity. I thought I made this clear. An intelligent creature used its sense and learned from its surroundings to apply methods of thought.

Really? What sort of reasoning did man use to ‘create’ the laws of logic; was it logical reasoning or illogical? If logical reasoning existed prior to and during the **alleged** ‘creating’ of those laws to begin with, then clearly the laws of logic could not have been created by man . If reasoning void of logic was used (i.e. illogical reasoning), then you are arguing that laws of logic were produced via illogical reasoning (and I’d really like to know how one arrives at logical laws using illogical reasoning). Either way you are refuted on this point, as laws of logic are an absolute, universal, immaterial, transcendent standard that exists apart from mankind. They are a reflection of the universal, sovereign, unchanging, non-contradictory character and nature of God, and describe the way He thinks and how He expects us to, being made in His image (by the impossibility of the contrary).

If you still dispute this, then the last challenge I will put forth for you to consider here is this: If you contend that the laws of logic are manmade (which they clearly are not), then could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way prior to the existence of man?

Once more, Roo, I thank you for your time and humbly request that you acknowledge the logical errors of your position, surrender it, and repent of the self-deception you are engaging in here. Continuing to argue the blatantly false positions that you have been thus far, will only serve to demonstrate to me and those who may read this exchange in the future, that you are, indeed, not arguing in good faith. I mean you no harm, but it is obvious at this point that you ARE continuing to hold to these positions, not BECAUSE OF any rational reasons, but IN SPITE of them. Your complaints against Christianity are therefore exposed to be emotional appeals, but certainly not logical ones. Experience has shown that such behavior is indicative of someone with merely an ax to grind. Whatever those reasons are, I hope that you acknowledge them and overcome them (and soon). I am here should you have any honest questions as you give consideration to these things after having abandoned your current stance. Take care.

LikeLike

scmike2 says:

I said: Please keep in mind, that the argument ended when you revealed that the basis of your position(s) was an irrational one. Please refer back to our prior comments where I pointed out the fallacies you have committed here.

You replied: I think you mean when you concluded them to be such, and I would like to further point out that by your standard, there never would, nor ever could be a competing position.

Correction: there never could nor ever would be a ‘valid’ competing standard (as we’ve seen). The fact that some people **ahem** choose to resist/suppress the truth regarding God’s existence and the Truth of the Bible (via idol worship, willful ignorance, irrational beliefs, etc.) is perfectly consistent with Scripture (Romans 1:18-22, in case you’ve forgotten). Therefore, presenting the Truth, sadly, does not equal persuasion or submission to it.

You said: “So that would indeed demonstrate your position to be circular.”

Actually, all ultimate Authority claims contain an element of circularity to them, however, not all of them (read: only one of them) can be true. Your claims of ‘I know because I know’ and ‘I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid’ are viciously circular and irrational. The Christian claim however, is (at worst) virtuously circular and not irrational (as you have conceded), providing us with a sound basis for the existence of logic, knowledge, and truth in the first place.

Besides, you still haven’t told why ANY (let alone ALL) circular arguments are absolutely forbidden in your worldview in the first place. What absolute, universal standard do they violate and why SHOULD that standard absolutely, universally NOT be violated under any circumstances? Surely not just because you say so?
I said: “And if I asked you how you know THAT (or anything else) for certain, your argument (in its simplest form) would be again reduced to ‘I know because I know’, which is no argument at all. No offence, Roo, but the fact that you can’t/won’t acknowledge that fact is mind boggling to me.”

You replied: “Because it answers your question, and needs no follow up. “I know because I have the ability to know (learning), and demonstrated that things can be known my me”.

Which simply amounts to you saying that your claims (including those above) are true because……you say there are. I apologize, Roo, as I (again) thought that you believed we should both have RATIONAL reasons for the things we accept as true.

Since you profess that the standard you are employing here to justify your claims is a valid means of proving things true, then I will simply adopt your standard *for the sake of the discussion* and posit that ‘God exists and the Bible is true because I say so’. According to your professed standard, I have provided an equally valid proof for my claim. I accept, in advance, your concession that Christianity has been sufficiently proven true via this argument—-unless, of course, you are engaging in a Double Standard here? Either way, you are refuted.

“Your agreement or disagreement doesn’t represent the truth of the matter, however such a disagreement would stem from the fact that you wouldn’t be agreeing that man exists, or is intelligent.”

Nope, just that there is no basis for the concepts of ‘intelligence’ or ‘learning’ within your non-Christian worldview (hence the viciously circular arguments being used). There is now a clear record of that fact right here on this very thread.

“Intelligent beings can learn”. We agree with that,”

Because we both know that the Christian God exists! The problem is, only one of us professes it, while the other suppresses it (unsuccessfully, though, since their arguments and behavior here reveal their precommitment to, and reliance upon, the God of the Bible). I trust I don’t have to point out which of us is which, no? ; )

“I agree. I hope you link this in future compendiums you compile.”

I was actually going to ask your permission to do so. I appreciate your consent here and now just need to know if you would like me to remove/alter your name for your benefit, or if you are OK with accepting full ownership and responsibility for your arguments ( illogical consequences and all). Let me know.

“I think that is a bit of a leap, Mike. I conceded that an omnipotent entity can do what it wants,”

No, you conceded that the God of the Bible (which is the only One I am arguing for) provides a logical foundation for knowing things with certainty, etc. You then made a separate ‘generic theism’ claim that turned out to be fallacious for several different reasons that I made you aware of (for instance, it is an irrelevant thesis and a hasty generalization to begin with). Even though you never have acknowledged it, I can at least rest in the fact that it is a part of the objective record here and can be viewed by intellectually honest individuals both now and in the future.

“I would think that if you found his testimony to be untrue, the easiest way to demonstrate it as untrue would be to offer up competing testimony or other facts.”

Offering ‘facts’ to someone, who has professed a position in which ‘facts’ are not possible, would be on par with giving medicine to dead people. Not interested.

I said: Perhaps this well help you see the problem with that position: Why, from a strictly atheistic/evolutionary worldview, SHOULD that be the case? What objective, universal standard necessarily dictates this and why is one not free to deviate from that standard if they so desire?

You said: Because it doesn’t matter to the scope of the question asked. The fact that you are lumping atheistic and evolutionary into a “world view” I think says a lot more about your understanding of such than you would care to consciously admit.

Unfortunately, this in no way addresses the questions asked about why you believe anyone else SHOULD do anything in a purely atheistic/evolutionary universe. It seems obvious at this point that you believe that solely on blind faith. Again, that has been the point from the very beginning.

I said: You see, the most evolution could ever produce is that which ‘IS’. I’d really like to see how you logically get from that which ‘IS’ to that which ‘SHOULD BE’.

You ignored the question and stated: Perhaps you should try asking that, asking an empirical question rather than a philosophical one. If you want a recipe, don’t ask for a large fry and a burger.
So you have no answer as to why I SHOULD do any of this then? Suit yourself.

I stated: Did that (by the impossibility of the contrary). Next.

You answered: Not if intelligent beings can learn.

That ‘if’ is the fatal flaw of your position, since it cannot be soundly defended in your worldview (but can be rationally defended within the Christian worldview, as conceded by you). Again, if you feel that the viciously circular ‘I know it because I know it’ is a logical defense, then there just isn’t any more that I can do for you here. I am thankful, however, that you have demonstrated that you don’t really believe that, since, if it were true, it would be impossible to solve any conflict in reasoning, as there could be no conflicts in reasoning. Everyone could simply posit ‘I know it because I know it’ as valid proof for ANY claim they make and their claim would necessarily be proven true (including those claims which contradict your own). Try as you might, you do not (and cannot) live according to that professed belief, as your ongoing arguments against my position indicate. I trust that fact will not be lost on those who may examine this in the future.

I said: Unfortunately, though, you failed to ever tell how the ability of a deity to be both omnipotent (as you have defined) and not omnipotent (as you defined) translates into the human ability to know things with certainty.

Your response: You never asked.

Riiiiiiiight. Good thing we’ve got that objective record which shows otherwise!!

“Its an omnipotent deity, it can create an intelligent mind, with omniscience.”

And using your definition of ‘omnipotence’ it also CAN’T ‘create an intelligent mind, with omniscience’ at the exact same time and in the exact same way. Of course, this type of absurdity essentially demolishes such a position (however, it does wonders for mine—-in fact, I’d ask that you to please keep it up!).

“Making use of an irrational power, it can do an irrational thing, including whatever irrational prospect you would like it to or need it to do.”

See above. Thanks again for that, though (x2)!!

“Unless of course the source of your argument instead “borrowed standards” from other sources first, and is demonstrably contradictory in its pages. Or nonsensical. Or empirically demonstrated as to be an impossibility. Which is why I suspect you disregard such critics out of hand.”

Nope. Just see no reason to really delve into Biblical exegesis with those who assume the truth of the Bible in order to try to disprove. It would be kind of like arguing the existence of air with someone who claims it doesn’t exist, while at the same time breathing it and relying on it to even make their arguments. I see no reason to go any further with people like that than to point out the obvious: if their position were true they couldn’t possibly be doing what they are doing, therefore, it is false. If I get an intellectually honest admission of their absurdity from them, then we can move forward with a rational discussion. If not, I must reluctantly leave them to their self-deception. Sadly, it appears that you prefer the latter here, which is very regrettable.

I responded: I am happy to see you also concede that the entities, you have been appealing to (in your ‘generic theism’ arguments) as true (real) foundations for knowledge, etc., do not exist.

To which you replied: As of yet, you haven’t explained why Christendom is excluded from “generic theism”.

Actually, you have explained it for me via your concessions that ‘generic theism’ IS NOT logically possible as a true foundation for the existence of knowledge, logic, etc. (since it is based upon non-existent (false) entities), while conceding that Christianity IS logically possible. I am satisfied with those concessions and trust that intellectually honest readers will be too.

“So its up to me to show you evidence when your book tells you I can’t possibly show evidence.”

If you claim to hold a competing, contrary position to mine that is a rational one, it is up to you to demonstrate that it is. That you can’t do so only serves to substantiate the Biblical claim that the contrary is not possible (since it ends in ‘vain’ and ‘foolish’ reasoning—Romans 1:18-22, Psalms 14:1, I Corinthians 1:20, I Corinthians 3:19). As such, your arguments against the Bible turn out to be arguments for it.

“But the book itself is not up for review. Please, do link this to any conversation you might have about such in the future.”

The Bible itself is not up for criticism by those who must rely on the truth of it in order to even begin to formulate an argument against it (for obvious reasons). Your permission to utilize this discussion in the future is, again, duly noted and appreciated! Let me know about changing your name or not, though, as I am willing to do so for your benefit—no one has to know your identity when they examine the behavioral inconsistencies you are engaging in here (unless you really want them to, that is). Up to you.

You claimed: Either way, if we are both to define omnipotent as “all powerful”, and you begin to place arbitrary limits based on what you think omnipotence cannot do, its not all powerful anymore.

Unfortunately for you, though, given your position that knowledge must come via observations and experience, you can’t know what omnipotence (or omniscience for that matter) is, since you have never observed or experienced it. However, you have conceded that it is possible for me to know, with certainty, that my claim about the non-contradictory nature of omnipotence is true, based upon Divine Revelation from the God of the Bible. Again, we’re talking knowledge vs. belief here with you embracing the latter position. Opinions are nice, Roo, but they have no place in a rational discussion, the purpose of which is to arrive at objective knowledge of the truth.

“Creating something from nothing is already irrational, a logical impossibility.”

And you justify universal truth claims of what is not possible (in all places and at all times) how? That’s what’s so crazy about this: in order to know the things you are claiming to be true, you would have to be omnipotent yourself (or have revelation from One who is)—the very characteristic that you are arguing against. Just another demonstration of the self-defeating nature of those worldviews which reject the God of the Bible for the record.

“All knowledge is not required for something to be true or learned.”

This is just another unjustifiable claim about ALL knowledge that you could never know or learn to be true given your professed position. Absent omniscience, or revelation from same, you can’t know anything or justify any claim about ALL knowledge. I am pleased with that as well.

I said: “If your definition of ‘omnipotence’ includes the ability of a deity to contradict itself, then it follows that the deity could be both ‘omnipotent’ (as you have defined it) and also ‘not omnipotent’ (as you have defined it) at the same time and in the same way.”

You said: Sure it could.

I responded: Which necessarily means it also couldn’t, so it can’t. QED.

To which you replied: Indeed. It can be both at the same time.

Which (again) also necessarily means that it can’t. QED.

I appreciate you showing what a worldview based upon contradictions (i.e. a contradictory worldview) looks like and why it can never be a rational one.

“I noticed you trimmed out my examples, though.”

Which necessarily means I also didn’t trim them out, according to you. You should have no problem with that also being equally true at the same time and in the same way, if you truly believe what you say you do.

I asked: Really? What sort of reasoning did man use to ‘create’ the laws of logic; was it logical reasoning or illogical?

You said: Ironically, the failure of the method here.

Would that be the failure of a logical method or an illogical method here, since they both end in illogical results. You ARE arguing that logical laws were created via illogical processes. Can’t you see what your professed position forces you to say? Why would you continue to argue for (and dogmatically) defend something so blatantly absurd? Actually, I already know why.

“Practical application.”

Of illogical reasoning. Got it! Really wish you hadn’t done that (not that I mind, though!).
Of course, we’ve already determined that there is zero basis for assuming that your senses and reasoning are functioning reliability right now and are providing you with valid conclusions about anything (least of all, logical laws). This is what a worldview without God looks like, Roo. As I mentioned in the article, it ain’t pretty.

“Trial and error. That is the process of learning, via stumbling across what doesn’t work to find something that does.”

Which assumes that one’s reasoning is functioning reliability at the outset such that they can be accurately aware of and then recognize/distinguish correctly what ‘works’ and what ‘doesn’t’. Again, you have no basis for this assumption in your worldview and, therefore, must accept it solely on blind faith. I remind you that doing so is an exercise in the irrational.

“I am not certain I understand the question (could the universe have both existed and not existed prior to man). You are asking contradictory terms based on a time frame, nor do I understand how such a question would be relevant to either of our posits.”

How ironic! NOW you are having difficulty grasping scenarios regarding possible contradictions? Have you been reading what you have been writing thus far?

I’ll show you how the question is VERY relevant to your claim: if the universe could not have both existed and not existed prior to man allegedly creating the laws of logic (namely the law of non-contradiction), then clearly the law applied to the universe BEFORE the existence of man and transcends human existence, which refutes your claim.
If the universe could have both existed and not existed beforehand, then you are forced to admit that it could still be doing so right now (as could you) OR that mankind somehow invented a law of logic that changed the nature of the universe, such that it can no longer both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. Both scenarios are equally absurd and also refute your claim.

“Assuming you do keep this around, or want to link to it, I would hope any reader might consider this for intellectual honesty: If its not possible in your world view to argue against the Bible, why do you invite questions?”

To expose the suppression of the truth from those who hold to non-Christian worldviews, so that they might be freed from the self-deception they are engaging in. Only then, is it possible for them to repent of their sins against God (including the major one of dishonoring Him via denial of His existence) and to trust in Jesus Christ, the One who died to make a way of escape for them (1 John 1:9, John 3:16, Galatians 3:13). Ultimately, this is out of my hands, as all I can do is declare the truth and hope that they will embrace it instead of rejecting it. That is my hope here for you, Roo.

I recognize that you no doubt feel that you have a lot to lose on a public forum such as this if you were to admit the falsity of your position. That (pride), alone, often stands in the way of many unbelievers acknowledging their error(s) in these types of discussions. However, I also know that there is a part of you that does want to reject that which is false and embrace truth, as you, too, are made in the image of the God in whom all truth exists. Therefore, I have hope in the fact that, in your heart of hearts, you know that viciously circular arguments and logical fallacies should not be used to support any position and that the types of arguments you have put forth here are not logically sound ones and should be rejected. Remember, there is a big difference between having reasons for the things we do or don’t do vs. just having excuses. You have shown that what you are attempting to cling to here is most definitely the latter of the two. I urge you to rethink your stance on this and abandon that which you know is false.

“You clearly don’t allow for that possibility, and never truly did, despite the deceptively civil tone you attempt to maintain.”

Such is the exclusive nature of truth. When one knows something for certain to be true, it necessarily follows that all competing, contrary propositions are invalid. Though I disagree with your allegation against me that I have been ‘deceptive’ (especially since I plainly stated the position I am arguing for multiple times in the article you chose to comment on and on the very post of the thread I linked to over at debate.org), I would argue that attempting to cling to demonstrably false ‘arguments’ (i.e. excuses) as a means of attempting to avoid acknowledging the truth of something that you just happen not to like, is the very definition of (self) ‘deceptive’ behavior. I hope (and yes, pray) that you will reconsider as, once again, Christ stands ready to forgive you if you humble yourself and call upon Him. Best wishes to you and thank you for the exposure of our respective positions here. In Christ,

Mike

LikeLike