It’s no secret that the foundational truths of the Christian Faith are under intense attack today, with the primary target being the credibility and authority of the very Word of God. Nowhere is this more evident than with regards to the very first book of the Bible–Genesis. Due to widespread acceptance of evolution as a proven fact (which it is not), many Christians have been made to believe that it is necessary to reinterpret Genesis 1:1-2 in a myriad of different ways to allow for millions or billions of years in the Creation account. What most do not realize, however, is that, in doing so, they are unwittingly abandoning the authority and truth of the Bible in favor of the opinions and ideas of fallible man (yes, scientists are human too and are not unbiased in their reasoning about these issues!) in the process.
This compromise leads to a whole host of problems, as once the door is opened, the opening never gets smaller—only larger. After all, if Genesis can be reinterpreted to fit the beliefs of man, why not reinterpret other areas of Scripture as well (such as those which forbid homosexuality, for instance) if that’s what people want to do to fit their personal preferences, lifestyles, or individual bias? The results of abandoning God’s Word as one’s Ultimate Authority are devastating, as we are witnessing in our culture today. Remove the foundation of any structure, and you can be sure that it will ultimately collapse. This is the reason that there is such pressure today from the world to force these secular philosophies (or dare I say, religions?) upon people in general, and especially Christians. Once an evolutionary mindset is adopted (even inadvertently), one must forsake a straightforward, literal approach to the Scriptures and the game begins of trying to make the Word of God fit our beliefs, rather than adjusting our beliefs to fit the revealed Words of Almighty God. This is the same tactic satan introduced in the garden of Eden (also in Genesis….!), when he subtly said to Eve: “Yea, hath God said…?“. Once we lay aside God’s Word as our final Authority, we (like Adam and Eve) become highly susceptible to the pervasive lies and deceptions that permeate the world today. Consider the very relevant question posed by the psalmist in Psalms 11:3. He asks:
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
Our only hope is to unapologetically return to the Romans 3 verse 4 mentality of ‘let God be true, but every man a liar’. That is, letting God’s Word have the final say in all areas of our lives including how we interpret the world around us. I’d like to show you what that looks like. A while back, I came across an article on a Christian website which was authored by a well-meaning, professing Christian named Brandon. In his article, he argues for the position that the earth is indeed billions of years old and even cited several Biblical references (out of context ) to support his position that a large gap of time should be inserted between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 (commonly referred to as the ‘gap theory’), in order to make the Bible harmonize with ‘scientific’ (read: evolutionary) theory. I posted a response to him back then in hopes of gently exposing and correcting the error of this line of reasoning. I am reposting that response here in hopes that this may also serve to aid others as they prayerfully consider and think through this crucial issue. Here is my response to Brandon (with minor alterations for better readability):
Hi Brandon! I am new to this site and just ran across your article. You have certainly done a lot of work and research in compiling the information you have posted. I commend you for your desire for truth, as that is the mark of a Christian and is something that should grow more intense in us as we grow in the Lord. With that said, I am a born again Christian who happens to hold to the position that the earth is indeed around 6,000 years old based upon God’s revelation of the Creation account in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. For many years, I believed and even taught that the earth was millions/billions of years old based upon my erroneous understanding of the Scriptures which resulted from attempting to force my own (and others’) preconceived notions about this subject on various texts (including many of the same ones that you listed above) to make them fit my belief, rather than allowing the Bible to dictate to me what my belief(s) should be regarding this issue. I have come to realize that this is a terrible mistake to make, as doing so only results in the compromising of the Authority of Scripture (often inadvertently) in the process. Please consider the following:
1) In your article, you cite 2 Peter 3:6 as evidence of an old earth, and the existence of a race of humans prior to Adam and Eve, due to Peter’s usage of the phrase ‘the world that then was’. However, just before this in 2 Peter 2:5, we see that Peter’s reference to an ‘old world’ (same meaning) directly alludes to that which was destroyed at the time of Noah’s flood and we are told that God ‘spared’ it not (i.e. he destroyed it), but saved Noah. There is no logical (or Biblical) basis for attempting to force a different meaning upon the phrase ‘the world that then was’ in 2 Peter 3:6, as this is simply a reiteration of what Peter was just speaking about (i.e. the race of humans and the societal structure destroyed by Noah’s flood) a few verses before, with the fact that Noah and his family survived being a given.
2) Exodus 20:11 plainly tells us that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas, ‘and all that in them is’ in 6 literal days. We know the days were literal days, because each day consisted of a morning and an evening (Genesis Chapter 1). I am aware of the arguments which try to make the Hebrew word for day (i.e. yom) mean ‘an indefinite amount of time’. However, those arguments are easily refuted in that Adam was created on day 6 and lived through the remainder of that day and then all of day 7 (and beyond). If the word ‘yom’ means millions or billions of years here, then Adam would have to have been muuuuuuuch older when he died than the 930 years of age the Bible tells us he was. Also, it is inconsistent to try to force this meaning upon the word ‘yom’ in Genesis, but then interpret the same word to mean a literal day elsewhere in the Bible (such as in the book of Joshua when we are told that Israel marched around the city of Jericho for 7 ‘yoms’). No one interprets this to mean anything other than literal days, yet many do so with the passages in Genesis describing the days of creation in order to ‘make’ it mean something different than what it says due to their presuppositions (i.e. already held beliefs) about the age of the earth.
3) Your arguments using Jeremiah Chapter 4 would be invalidated by Exodus 20:11, since we know that ALL of creation took place in just 6 days, with no ‘Gap’ in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 to allow for a separate ‘age’ or race of humans prior to Adam and Eve. When Jeremiah speaks of there being no man present, it is a description of what one would have seen during Noah’s flood. At this point, it is already understood and is taken for granted (based upon earlier revelation) that Noah and his family survived IN the ark, but the rest of humanity was completely destroyed OUTSIDE of the ark, which is clearly what is being described here (if we take the text at face value). Jeremiah’s vision is entirely consistent with the promised and fulfilled aftermath of Noah’s flood described in Genesis 6:13, 6:17, 7:4, & 7:22-23, as these verses repeatedly use the imagery of total destruction in their description of that event.
4) In order for there to have existed cities before Adam and Eve, there would have also had to have existed people before them as well. This means that death would have also existed prior to Adam and Eve if God destroyed the ‘first world’ and everyone in it. This is contrary to what the Bible clearly teaches about the existence of death and its origin through Adam (Rom. 5:12-17, 1 Cor. 15:21-22). There is no Biblical basis whatsoever for assuming that death existed before Adam sinned and brought God’s curse upon the earth and humanity.
5) You said in your article: “In closing, I hope it has become apparent to you that the earth is not merely 6,000 years old, but that it is billions of years old as science tells us.”
This is a very telling statement, and is really the crux of the issue at hand. One of the primary reasons that I have seen for people teaching an ‘old’ earth is to somehow try to make the Bible conform to what scientists tell us about the age of the earth. In other words, the word of scientists is held above the authority of Scripture, which is reinterpreted (again, often inadvertently) to fit man’s opinion of what happened in the unobserved and unobservable past, rather than taking the text at face value as an eyewitness account from the One who was there—God. This is very dangerous, as many of those scientists who advocate an old earth do so due to their presuppositions that God’s Word is not true and that God doesn’t exist. Instead, they begin with a purely naturalistic/ evolutionary worldview and then interpret all evidence via that worldview, which leads them to faulty conclusions based upon faulty assumptions (e.g. no global flood ever happened during the time of Noah, etc.). These faulty assumptions are also present in many of the dating methods (i.e. radiometric and Carbon-14 dating) used to ‘prove’ that the earth is very old. Since the data is interpreted through faulty assumptions, the conclusions about the data are also faulty.
You see, if we should reinterpret the Creation account in Genesis based upon the word of fallible scientists and their beliefs about the past, then should we also reinterpret the resurrection account of Jesus as well, since these same people would also tell us that men do not rise from the dead after three days and then walk through walls? What about the other accounts in the Bible which they would reject, such as Balaam’s talking donkey, the floating ax head, the parting of the Red Sea, the talking serpent, etc.–should we reinterpret those texts as well to mean something different than what they say if the consensus is that they are impossible due to the naturalistic worldview held by certain scientists? Of course not!
When we begin with the Word of God as our ultimate authority and base our interpretation of evidence and our subsequent conclusions about the world around us solely on the revealed truths of Scripture, we find that there is overwhelming evidence to support a young earth (especially in light of the knowledge of a global flood during Noah’s day which caused drastic change to the face of the earth via rapid erosion and geological processes in just a short amount of time). Brandon, I understand the extreme pressures to conform to the majority’s way of thinking on these issues so that we can avoid potential ridicule for holding to what amounts to a highly unpopular position (mostly because of the widespread acceptance of evolution as a proven fact, which it is not), but we must remember that Christianity itself is an unpopular position in the world. Jesus told us that we can expect the world to hate us because of our allegiance to Him and to the Word of God as our ultimate authority. In other words, we shouldn’t be expecting to win any popularity contests when we stand for Christ and the truth of the Bible.
I encourage you to give these issues some serious thought and to realize that, as Christians, we need not compromise the Word of God based upon the opinions and erroneous thinking of man. Instead, the Word of God must have the final say in every area of our lives, with regards to our thinking, and how we view the world around us (Rom. 3:4). When we begin with God’s Word as our sole foundation, we will always be on the side of truth and need not be concerned about being in the minority. There are numerous resources available that you can take a look at if you’d like. I for one have found the Answers in Genesis website to be extremely informative and helpful in thinking through these issues. Take care and God Bless!
christian ammunition 
“You see, if we should reinterpret the Creation account in Genesis based upon the word of fallible scientists and their beliefs about the past, then should we also reinterpret the resurrection account of Jesus as well, since these same people would also tell us that men do not rise from the dead after three days and then walk through walls? What about the other accounts in the Bible which they would reject, such as Balaam’s talking donkey, the floating ax head, the parting of the Red Sea, the talking serpent, etc.–should we reinterpret those texts as well to mean something different than what they say if the consensus is that they are impossible due to the naturalistic worldview held by certain scientists? Of course not!”
How many of those instances have you seen, exactly? By which I mean if you are attempting to state that because scientists hold a “belief” of X Y or Z, and its a “belief” because its something seemingly cobbled together but not witnessed…
Exactly where does that leave those examples that would separate it from the works of the Brother’s Grimm?
LikeLike
Hey again, Roo! Long time no talk to! Regarding your comment, I’m not sure what you’re asking here. My contention has never been that scientists (unbelieving or otherwise) cannot know things for certain to be true. It is that they cannot account for knowledge, truth, etc. in a non-Christian worldview, since they have no rational basis for trusting the reliability of their senses and reasoning in the first place (something that was demonstrated in our prior discussion when your own position was reduced to the equivalent of ‘sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid’). Therefore, when someone who professes a non-Christian worldview claims to know things, they are behaving inconsistently with their espoused position. Of course, this renders such a position irrational and, subsequently, a false one.
As such, it is only when one professes (rather than suppresses) the Truth of the Bible that they have any solid foundation for anything they claim to ‘know’ or claim to be ‘true’ (by the impossibility of the contrary), since it is only via Divine Revelation from One who knows everything that we can know anything at all for certain (something that you also conceded in our prior discussion). Hope this helps!
LikeLike
Well, it is your blog. If you don’t post much, you won’t see me comment much.
First up: ” It is that they cannot account for knowledge, truth, etc. in a non-Christian worldview, since they have no rational basis for trusting the reliability of their senses and reasoning in the first place (something that was demonstrated in our prior discussion when your own position was reduced to the equivalent of ‘sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid’)”
No, I beg to differ, it was not “demonstrated” it was asserted. We both agree that man can learn. You feel this is the purview of Christendom only for… well… reasons. I don’t. You demonstrated no reason as to why it must rely upon Christendom, especially if this particular trait applies to man.
Secondly, that particular bit of sophistry is irrelevant to a course of study. As I made allusion to previously, a marskmen need not know of gun primer to score bull’s eyes. As such, a scientist that cannot account for (at least on your terms) philosophy is irrelevant to the immediate data that has been corroborated, and where it points.
Now, to your question, when you state that X is a situation that is a rational one, that being an ax head can float, donkey’s and snakes talk, etc etc, this should be a position that comports with reality. That being, we can see it in the natural world. Clearly, we can’t, at least by the example set in the Bible. So, clearly, the natural world is one that comports to a situation in which those circumstances you mention don’t occur. They DO however occur in other works of fiction, and the also strive to accomplish the same ends in those works of fiction.
The question is how one can determine with the same set of internal circumstance which volumes are true. Just So Stories, Aesop’s Fables, The Odyssey and Iliad… you see, all these works also make use of irrational circumstance in which to dictate morality, much like the Bible. If we rely on the internal validity of such, how can one determine fact from fiction?
Now, more to this “truth knowledge” etc etc.
Where does it begin? Simple arithmetic is logical, correct? One plus one is two, the “transcendental, intangible” process by which it happens is just as nebulous as logic itself by my understanding of your position. Are you willing to call basic mathematics something that too, must be divinely revealed? The more this “transcendental, intangible” idea gets fleshed out, the less it seems that man can learn, which is a position which you professed makes sense in a Christian world view. I contended that no such learning exists in your world view. If “Logic” must be deistically created and revealed, so to must all things conceptual. What you consider “learning” is actually “programming”, at least by my understanding of your view.
LikeLike
“Well, it is your blog. If you don’t post much, you won’t see me comment much.”
Touche’! 😀
“No, I beg to differ, it was not “demonstrated” it was asserted. We both agree that man can learn.”
The difference is, one of us (not you) has a coherent justification for the very concept of learning things in their worldview, while the other (you) does not. Please reread our prior exchange and hopefully you will come to see why ‘sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid’ does not even come close to a rational foundation for the possibility of arriving at knowledge of the truth (i.e. learning things) in your worldview. If you have no valid basis for proceeding with the assumption that the very senses and reasoning, through which you claim to learn about the world around you, are reliable to begin with, then you have no foundation upon which to rest any of the subsequent knowledge claims you have made here (apart from blind irrational faith, that is). As such, they warrant no response.
As I have stated previously, while I appreciate your eagerness to share with me your opinions, I am only interested in discussing what you KNOW to be true and HOW you know it. If you have a rationally defensible, competing position that you would now like to posit, which provides you with a sound basis for knowledge, truth, logic, etc., I am open to examining it. However, if you are content to continue this current, fallacious line of reasoning, then I thank you for your time and bid you farewell. Your choice. Gotta crawl before you can walk, after all.
LikeLike
“The difference is, one of us (not you) has a coherent justification for the very concept of learning things in their worldview, while the other (you) does not. Please reread our prior exchange and hopefully you will come to see why ‘sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid’ ” — which amazingly, wasn’t the argument. I have re read, and I can’t
see the line of argumentation which you espouse which is not agreed upon axiom. If senses don’t provide feed back, they aren’t senses. If man can’t learn, reasoning doesn’t exist. These are the hurdles you have yet to overcome, despite agreeing with certain prospects of the proposition.
” If you have no valid basis for proceeding with the assumption that the very senses and reasoning, through which you claim to learn about the world around you, are reliable to begin with, then you have no foundation upon which to rest any of the subsequent knowledge claims you have made here (apart from blind irrational faith, that is).”
— And yet… current science and philosophy literally dictates (and demonstrates) otherwise. Please, answer plainly: does a marksmen need understanding of bullet primer (to your satisfaction) to score a bull’s eye? Heck, does he need to explain bullet primer and the chemistry there in AT ALL to score a bull’s eye?
I do have “valid reasoning”. That is the NATURAL ORDER. By which I mean means that can be quantitatively and didactically researched in living things. Not just humans. Again, this is yet another hurdle you have chosen to ignore.
“As such, they warrant no response.” and that is a dodge, sir. From here on out is literally your dictation of terms you invent to satisfy criteria you are not specifically knowledgeable about. On this vary blog, no doubt.
Shall we answer the question, or are you relying on your canard of questions to hopefully save you?
Where does it begin? Simple arithmetic is logical, correct? One plus one is two, the “transcendental, intangible” process by which it happens is just as nebulous as logic itself by my understanding of your position. Are you willing to call basic mathematics something that too, must be divinely revealed?
If you feel MY position is walking before you crawl, then surely rudimentary explanations of even the most simple of transcendental/intangible concepts are having appendages before you crawl.
LikeLike
“which amazingly, wasn’t the argument.”
Really? Then we must be looking at two entirely different conversations. See, when I ask how you know that your senses and reasoning are reliable and you say “that, too, is learned” (6/5/15 4:57 AM) and “In truth, our senses and reasoning are validated by how well we work with our surroundings.” (6/6/15 12:56 AM). What do you mean by that? Please remind me how you ‘learn’ anything or how you gauge how well you are ‘working with your surroundings’ WITHOUT appealing to your senses and reasoning as the means by which you carry out each of those functions (especially since you’ve professed to believe that our senses and reasoning are all we “realistically ever have” (6/6/15 2:53 AM) as the means of gaining knowledge (i.e. learning things)).
Sure, you may continue to deny the absurd implications of what you are arguing here, however, you are only attempting to conceal what is painfully obvious to anyone else who examines the written record of what you stated here.
For the record, please also remember that you have previously conceded that Christianity can (and does) provide a sound, rationally defensible basis for trusting the reliability of one’s senses and reasoning completely apart from those same senses and reasoning—direct and indirect Divine revelation—which, therefore, establishes a (read: the only) solid basis for the possibility of knowing or learning anything at all. After all, I previously 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 then responded: This is true, (6/6/15 1:50 PM)
AND
“such an entity could (reveal things to mankind such that we can be certain of them)” (6/5/15 4:57 AM).
Thanks again for the comments, Roo. As I’ve previously stated, feel free to return anytime you wish with a rationally defensible, competing position and I will be happy to engage it. As of now, I see no reason to entertain ‘arguments’ or ‘knowledge’ claims that attempt to undermine the only possible source of knowledge and logical argumentation (for obvious reasons). Why trust such a hopelessly irrational position?
P.S. Just an FYI: Yes, God is the necessary precondition for abstract, universal, invariant laws of mathematics, as well (by the impossibility of the contrary).
LikeLike
“Really? Then we must be looking at two entirely different conversations.”
I am surprised you feel that way, considering I was trying to direct you in the correct one as we were having it.
” What do you mean by that? Please remind me how you ‘learn’ anything or how you gauge how well you are ‘working with your surroundings’ WITHOUT appealing to your senses and reasoning as the means by which you carry out each of those functions (especially since you’ve professed to believe that our senses and reasoning are all we “realistically ever have” (6/6/15 2:53 AM) as the means of gaining knowledge (i.e. learning things)).”
Sure. Though you have just changed the definition of “senses”. If its not supplying you input, its not a “sense”. Lets assume for a moment you are, say “hot”. This uncomfortable feeling (sense) is not something you like. Its uncomfortable, after all. So you proceeded to move. Heck, flail, crawl, slither, whatever you do until such time as its not “hot”. In realizing you are not hot, you have found another sense: its “dark”. Leaving the “dark” makes you not “hot”. Hm… it would appear as though this intelligent being just learned something. Even if by accident, the clues are present (reality), and even if NOT immediately learned by the subject, and it/he/she proceeds to flail slither crawl or what have not elsewhere, they will again get hot, and presumably the same circumstance repeats. Now, since you have alternate method of “learning”, quid pro quo. Please describe what you call divine revelation. Examples/standards of yours occurring would also be beneficial.
“you have previously conceded that Christianity can (and does) provide a sound” — stop lying, Mike. Its amazing that you have to say I conceded something, then copy and paste something in which YOU say I conceded something. You know as well as I do that I was agreeing that an entity whom you kept assigning traits to could do whatever circumstance were possibly by virtue of those traits. You asked if something had the traits you just said it had, is it possible it could use those traits. I agreed. That is hardly a concession of any of those actually being true on the whole.
“Why trust such a hopelessly irrational position?”
Heh. Yours or mine? You are the one indicating that God doesn’t change, when the foundation for which you lay that on is rife with various changes of heart. Remember, ax heads float.
Float me an ax head, Mike.
“God is the necessary precondition for abstract, universal, invariant laws of mathematics, as well (by the impossibility of the contrary)”
Man (or any complex intelligent creature) is the necessary precondition for God. By demonstration in practicality.
Float me an ax head, Mike.
LikeLike
“”Though you have just changed the definition of “senses”. If its not supplying you input, its not a “sense”.””
And how do you know that YOUR reasoning about this is valid to begin with? Based on your prior admissions, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you claim to know that it is because ultimately you reasoned that it is. Hey, fine by me.
“”Lets assume for a moment you are, say “hot”. This uncomfortable feeling (sense) is not something you like. Its uncomfortable, after all. So you proceeded to move. Heck, flail, crawl, slither, whatever you do until such time as its not “hot”. In realizing you are not hot, you have found another sense: its “dark”. Leaving the “dark” makes you not “hot”. Hm… it would appear as though this intelligent being just learned something.””
This, of course, once again assumes that your reasoning about all of this is reliable–something that you have not and, I submit, cannot justify given your professed worldview. As such, you lose any foundation for proceeding with the assumption that you can reliably distinguish ‘intelligence’ from ‘non-intelligence’ and ‘correct’ reasoning from ‘incorrect’ reasoning (since you could only do that if you already knew what ‘correct’ reasoning looks like at the outset and that you possessed it).
Not only that, but if the validity of everyone’s senses and reasoning is ultimately determined (learned) via those same senses and reasoning (as you have indeed argued), then there can be no such thing as ‘invalid’ or ‘incorrect’ reasoning (as everyone’s reasoning would necessarily be self-validating, as would any ‘reality’ perceived by them). While you may profess to believe this, your actions and arguments here betray you, as you behave as if there is a meaningful standard by which other human beings SHOULD ‘correctly’ conduct their thinking and reasoning. However, when I have previously asked you to justify how you arrive at any meaningful, objective standard of what ‘SHOULD BE’ in an evolutionary universe, the question was met with just another empty, unjustified assumption of the same kind when you said:
“Perhaps you SHOULD (emphasis mine) 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.” (6/11/15 12:56 AM)
And, when pressed on this point, you finally just evaded the question altogether and said:
“I will let you work out the details to that, as ultimately, it’s not for me to be concerned with.” (6/11/15 12:56 AM)
Try as you may, Roo, you cannot escape the reality that you are living in God’s universe and are subject to His rules, as is confirmed via the inconsistency/absurdity you are forced into when you profess that the God of the Bible does not exist but then, at the same time, must behave as if He does exist in order to make sense of anything or to even function at all. If nothing else, I can at least rest in the fact that there is now a more substantial, objective record of that here for all to see. Take care!
LikeLike
“And how do you know that YOUR reasoning about this is valid to begin with? ” — I have been part of plenty of practical example and application. I have seen and participated in this process. The observed reactions trended. IE, the conclusion is reasonable, that being it is drawn from repeated circumstance. My conclusions on the matter comported with reality, and the evidence for such a conclusion was also drawn from reality.
Have you floated your ax head yet?
“This, of course, once again assumes that your reasoning about all of this is reliable–something that you have not and, I submit, cannot justify given your professed worldview” — negative, this assumes your senses are actually sensing. The stimuli could very well have been passed over, however the circumstances to learn were there. If they do sense, action can be taken on behalf of that regardless of sound reasoning, however the results are subject to very wide results.
“As such, you lose any foundation for proceeding with the assumption that you can reliably distinguish ‘intelligence’ from ‘non-intelligence’ and ‘correct’ reasoning from ‘incorrect’ reasoning (since you could only do that if you already knew what ‘correct’ reasoning looks like at the outset and that you possessed it).” — you are mixing words. The alleviation of the stimulus was the goal. That is not reasoning, that is desire. From there, it doesn’t matter how it was arrived at provided it was arrived at. Post alleviation, the clues and evidence then point in a direction. While the stimuli is alleviated, its also (in this example) dark. The subject can learn from this, and use the reasons to form a conclusion and behavior or not. You will noticed I also said “flail” and “slither” to denote the way in which the subject might move. Would you like to guess as to why? The evidence was real, the conclusion (if one was drawn) comports with reality.
“Not only that, but if the validity of everyone’s senses and reasoning is ultimately determined (learned) via those same senses and reasoning (as you have indeed argued), then there can be no such thing as ‘invalid’ or ‘incorrect’ reasoning (as everyone’s reasoning would necessarily be self-validating, as would any ‘reality’ perceived by them). ” — Depends on if the conclusion comports with reality. In the given example, the reasoning isn’t “self” validated. The stimuli is genuinely alleviated, reality validated that, not the subject.
““I will let you work out the details to that, as ultimately, it’s not for me to be concerned with.”” — this little snippet, I feel, sort of went around your head, or over it, or you weren’t interested in what I was saying. If you ask “What is 2+2”, and some one replies with the answer “4”, its in bad taste to philosophize about the nature of mathematics, or how they arrived at that conclusion beyond simple arithmetic. Its poor form. To continue what I have been stating, you have just indicated the marksmen didn’t score a bullseye because his knowledge of chemistry is shoddy after asking him to shoot a bullseye, and him indeed shooting a bullseye for you. You asked specific detailed questions about what you (incorrectly) think evolution entailed, and when you got specific and detailed (read indexed and demonstrable) answers, you changed the subject. Is it my concern that you look the fool for such a gaffe? No. Ultimately, its not my concern at all if that is how you choose to represent yourself.
“Try as you may, Roo, you cannot escape the reality that you are living in God’s universe and are subject to His rules”
Oh? Been to any witch stonings lately? I mowed my lawn this Sunday, and ya know what happened? Nothing.
“as is confirmed via the inconsistency/absurdity you are forced into when you profess that the God of the Bible does not exist but then,”
I would like to remind you that you are the one that agreed man has the ability to learn, but then for some reason even though he has the ability, that is not enough to satisfy “how”. To wit: how did God conjure the universe? Why, through omnipotence, of course! Right, but HOW did he do it? Why… through omnipotence, of course! If you agree the ability is present, the follow up is answered. Can reasoning be learned? Of course! Can intelligent beings learn? Of course! So.. why is God necessary for logic to be learned, then?
at the same time, must behave as if He does exist in order to make sense of anything or to even function at all. If nothing else, I can at least rest in the fact that there is now a more substantial, objective record of that here for all to see. Take care!” —
Mm. Keep floating that ax head, Mike, and beware them talkin’ snakes.
Just as a side bar, how many real things can be defined into existence, much as you believe you have done?
LikeLike
“I have been part of plenty of practical example and application. I have seen and participated in this process.”
And since you, no doubt, used your reasoning to interpret your experience and sensory feedback during this (or any) ‘process’, you are indeed asserting (yet again) that you have ‘reasoned your reasoning to be valid’. No matter how you slice it, or how you try to conceal it, that is (and will continue to be) the irrational result of your professed position.
“The observed reactions trended. IE, the conclusion is reasonable, that being it is drawn from repeated circumstance. My conclusions on the matter comported with reality, and the evidence for such a conclusion was also drawn from reality.”
I see. So you know YOUR senses and reasoning (which is what I am asking you about here) are giving you reliable results about these things based on the results (i.e. reality) produced by your….um….senses and reasoning? While I am amazed (but not surprised) that you continue to cling to this absurd line of reasoning, I am also very grateful for the repeated demonstration here of what a worldview without God really amounts to in the end. Yikes!
“Have you floated your ax head yet”
Not yet. However:
1) It does not follow that, because I have not done so, it therefore cannot be (or has not been) done by an omniscient, omnipotent God. Especially since there exists an objectively verifiable, true historical record of such an event (the Bible).
2) Based upon the (faulty) line of reasoning you are employing here, it therefore follows that, since you have never personally observed the process of ‘molecules to man evolution (i.e. one ‘kind’ of creature turning into another ‘kind’ over millions/billions of years)’ or performed the act yourself, then it therefore did not occur. I am pleased with that outcome.
After all, given your professed stance here, surely you’d agree that it would be preposterous of you to expect me to accept something like that just because some book(s) tell you it happened, no? ; )
“negative, this assumes your senses are actually sensing. The stimuli could very well have been passed over, however the circumstances to learn were there. If they do sense, action can be taken on behalf of that regardless of sound reasoning, however the results are subject to very wide results.”
Hmmmm. Since it is via one’s reasoning faculties that they interpret what their senses tell them, perhaps you can (once again) explain how unsound (unreliable) reasoning can provide one with reliable interpretations of, and subsequent conclusions about, their sensory feedback (especially when you are arguing that the reliability of your own reasoning about everything you’re claiming here is validated via that same reasoning from the get go).
“In the given example, the reasoning isn’t “self” validated. The stimuli is genuinely alleviated, reality validated that, not the subject.”
So the ‘reality’ perceived via your senses and reasoning validated the senses and reasoning that perceived that ‘reality’? Nope, nothing viciously circular about that, Roo! You crack me up!!
If you’re going to continue to dogmatically cling to and defend that position, despite its logical deficiencies (instead of relinquishing it, like I would personally prefer to see you do), then at least having you posit it over and over here on a Christian blog is the next best thing. After all, it is never a bad thing for folks to repeatedly see what an unbelieving worldview ultimately amounts to in the end.
“If you ask “What is 2+2″, and some one replies with the answer “4”, its in bad taste to philosophize about the nature of mathematics, or how they arrived at that conclusion beyond simple arithmetic.”
However, suppose that same individual denied the existence of numbers, as per one of the primary tenets of his professed worldview, and then typed that he could cite ‘729 reasons’ for why they don’t exist…….surely it would then be appropriate to ask such a one how he accounts for the numbers he just typed if he says they are not possible, no?
Now imagine asking him about this gross inconsistency and getting an evasive response back–something akin to ‘I’ll leave that for you to worry about, as that does not concern me’. Think of how easily you would see through such a response (and the motive behind it) and you will now understand better how your evasion appears to me (and how devastating it is to your professed position).
“Oh? Been to any witch stonings lately? I mowed my lawn this Sunday, and ya know what happened? Nothing.”
Well, since you’re not an ancient Israelite living under God’s direct theocratic rule and, therefore, not bound by the civil and ceremonial mandates contained in the Levitical Law—I’m not surprised, really. ; )
By the way, just a few minutes of simple, honest research on the position you’re arguing against would have cleared up that misconception for you beforehand. Very sloppy argumentation, Roo. Color me disappointed.
“I would like to remind you that you are the one that agreed man has the ability to learn, but then for some reason even though he has the ability, that is not enough to satisfy “how”. To wit: how did God conjure the universe? Why, through omnipotence, of course! Right, but HOW did he do it? Why… through omnipotence, of course! If you agree the ability is present, the follow up is answered.”
Oh, I agree that this God-given ability is present, as you, too, are made in His image and, therefore, possess some of His characteristics (such as the ability to reason, for instance). However, because you deny that truth, your resulting position leads to the strange (and woefully absurd) conclusion that knowledge (the very prerequisite for ‘learning’) is not possible, as you have zero basis for trusting your senses and reasoning in the first place (apart from blind faith).
Surely you’d agree that we should both have sound, logically defensible reasons for the things we believe to be true, no? Yet, you seem all too content to arbitrarily abandon a normal, straightforward logical approach for dealing with these types of questions in exchange for an illogical one that consists of you basically arguing ‘it’s just that way’ as your justification for the existence of things that you believe in, but cannot reconcile within your worldview (because you don’t wish to deal with the ramifications that come with abandoning it). If that’s what your arguments have been reduced to here, then I can just simply posit that God exists and the Bible is true because, well, ‘it’s just that way’. However, that argument (like yours) is no argument at all.
Here’s what is at stake here, Roo (on this side, that is): We hold to two completely different ultimate authorities (yours being your own autonomous reasoning and mine being the God of the Bible). At this point, it is not hard to see which one is ultimately rationally defensible and which one is not. Hint: the one that is ultimately reduced to ‘I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid’ is the one that’s not.
“Can reasoning be learned? Of course! Can intelligent beings learn? Of course! So.. why is God necessary for logic to be learned, then?”
As I have stated previously, I disagree that logic is ‘learned’. Logic is a necessary prerequisite for the sound reasoning required to ‘learn anything’. That is, laws of logic must be presupposed before they can be proven to exist (after all, how would one formulate any logical proof for them without necessarily assuming the existence of logical laws?). Only via the Bible can they be made sense of, however, since their abstract, universal, invariant nature comports with the immaterial, sovereign, unchanging nature of the God of the Bible (by the impossibility of the contrary).
“Just as a side bar, how many real things can be defined into existence, much as you believe you have done?”
Hmmmm. That’s a very ‘COMPLEX QUESTION’ (look up that fallacy when you get time). While you’re at it, here’s one for you: How long are you going to continue to try and pass Faustian’s bad arguments off as legitimate ones? I mean, at this point, you might as well just BE him. Hey, wait a minute…….nah, couldn’t be. ; )
LikeLike
“you are indeed asserting (yet again) that you have ‘reasoned your reasoning to be valid’. No matter how you slice it, or how you try to conceal it, that is (and will continue to be) the irrational result of your professed position.” — By then I am reporting reality. 😉 My conclusion is irrelevant to the actual events that transpire, but it was also interesting to see how frequently my conclusion lined up with reality before it transpired.
“I see. So you know YOUR senses and reasoning (which is what I am asking you about here) are giving you reliable results about these things based on the results (i.e. reality) produced by your….um….senses and reasoning?” — and yet again, no. My senses and reasoning are independent of the results at the onset. Point of fact, I was wrong, many times about the particular subject, but as time wore on and the evidence was made clear, my conclusions began to comport with reality. Reality was the ultimate judge. Not me.
“2) Based upon the (faulty) line of reasoning you are employing here, it therefore follows that, since you have never personally observed the process of ‘molecules to man evolution (i.e. one ‘kind’ of creature turning into another ‘kind’ over millions/billions of years)’ or performed the act yourself, then it therefore did not occur. I am pleased with that outcome.” — I don’t need millions or billions of years to see that. It can (and has) been accomplished by people now. Not on so grand a scale, but easily from one specie to another. The grounding for such a conclusion is not impossible. Water being more dense than iron at room temperatures, however… well, the jury is back on that one. A long time ago. But keep trying, would it please you.
“Hmmmm. Since it is via one’s reasoning faculties that they interpret what their senses tell them, perhaps you can (once again) explain how unsound (unreliable) reasoning can provide one with reliable interpretations of, and subsequent conclusions about, their sensory feedback (especially when you are arguing that the reliability of your own reasoning about everything you’re claiming here is validated via that same reasoning from the get go).” — if not report feedback, what do your senses do? This is why I instructed you to take the tact of “instinct” being ‘divinely revealed’ (quid pro quo, btw, don’t think I haven’t noticed you have been remiss in answering). Acting on instinct with regards to stimuli requires literally no reasoning, thats the point of instinct. Snails have no higher intellect with regard to prey evasion, so unless you are insterested in stating that God divinely reveals such information (definition pending, of course) to each and every prey avoiding simple life form even less simple than a fish (and you can thank me later for giving you a better grounding), then because its your posit, you are going to need to reveal a bit more better detail to your ‘truth’ claim than ‘omnipotence’. As I made example of, if you have no desire to carry ‘learning’ to its conclusion, I have no reason to carry ‘omnipotence’ to its conclusion, either.
” Nope, nothing viciously circular about that, Roo! You crack me up!!” — then what does a sense do? Words mean things, Mike. If you say “senses and reasoning”, even if you don’t want to give the reasoning credit, the sense had to have done something, yes? What was it they did?
“…….surely it would then be appropriate to ask such a one how he accounts for the numbers he just typed if he says they are not possible, no?” — were this analogy congruous, sure. But that was hardly what was done, was it? Or should I brace for the spin you are about to impart? You asked about evolution. In basic trivia format. You got answers. In much the same fashion. You then began to ask questions not related to that branch of trivia. Its not my fault you don’t like the answers, or the evidence such answers are compiled from, and snickering that your anti-logic logic question can’t be answered in the answer you like doesn’t in any way explain away the evidence those answers are drawn from. How does he know? He learned it. How did God do it? Omnipotence. You tell me which you want to extend to its conclusion. If both, peachy, you have the answer to your ‘how do you know’ questions. I am done entertaining them, less you care to explain the inner workings of omnipotence.
“‘it’s just that way’ as your justification for the existence of things that you believe in, but cannot reconcile within your worldview” — the easiest way to shatter a world view is by showing then, “its not the way it just is”. That being, float me an ax head, Mike. Lets see some talking Donkeys. Lets see some burning bushes that aren’t consumed. I know I can’t find the periodic table in the Bible. I know you have some spin as to why. I know I can’t find record of a world wide flood in reality. I know you have spin as to why. I know why people haven’t turned to salt as of late, and that snakes don’t talk. Your examples on “God” are short, which is why you turn to philosophy. God is being pushed into a smaller and smaller box, so of course you need to usurp more and more for Him to seem relevant. It’s okay to be scared. Just be honest about it.
“Well, since you’re not an ancient Israelite living under God’s direct theocratic rule and, therefore, not bound by the civil and ceremonial mandates contained in the Levitical Law—I’m not surprised, really. ; )” — so the 10 commandments don’t apply to you? 😉 Careful, Mike, for a guy whom isn’t interested in opening the Bible with me, it sounds like you just tried to open the Bible with me. I am sure that will end poorly for one of us.
“but cannot reconcile within your worldview (because you don’t wish to deal with the ramifications that come with abandoning it). If that’s what your arguments have been reduced to here, then I can just simply posit that God exists and the Bible is true because, well, ‘it’s just that way’. However, that argument (like yours) is no argument at all.” — x2, you have been doing that anyways. Secondly, I don’t need to rely on my interpretation of reality, you and I both have the same resources at our disposal regarding… well, anything, so. I again call for evidence of your position, that being an ax head can float, snakes talk, etc. Please, present me with an ax head floating on water such to demonstrate your position as taken from the Bible is rational. Reality trumps philosophy, Mike, and you are long on Philosophy and short on evidence of your reality. Its all post hoc attribution, mostly now due to desperation. Not by you specifically, theists in general.
“Hint: the one that is ultimately reduced to ‘I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid’ is the one that’s not.” — Of course. And how did you sense the Bible was reasonable again, beyond your own senses and reasoning? You again were short on that.
“Only via the Bible can they be made sense of, however, since their abstract, universal, invariant nature comports with the immaterial, sovereign, unchanging nature of the God of the Bible”– I feel this argument is a bit of a lie, since its been demonstrated that the God of the Bible is hardly unchanging.
“As I have stated previously, I disagree that logic is ‘learned’.” — then please, explain your truth claim. Its not learned its something else. How does an infant realize even the most rudimentary aspects of what it should do in life.
“Hmmmm. That’s a very ‘COMPLEX QUESTION’ ” — So then lets leave off the personal aside.
How many things can be defined into existence?
Are you confident “How do you account for logic and reasoning” don’t have your own presuppositions built in? Considering your creative definitions of knowledge and learning thus far, I am willing to wager the answer is less than flattering.
But, shatter my world view, Mike. Float an ax head, or face the fact you just might be as deluded as the individuals in second Thessalonians. Thus far, its really only been courtesy that prevents me from immediately demonstrating contradictions in the Bible, just because I know your excuse will be “Forced fit”, so, sure, lets see how many times you whimper “forced fit” now that I am done being courteous regarding this “unchanging” God.
LikeLike
I said: “you are indeed asserting (yet again) that you have ‘reasoned your reasoning to be valid’. No matter how you slice it, or how you try to conceal it, that is (and will continue to be) the irrational result of your professed position.”
You said: “By then I am reporting reality.”
Simple question: Do you use your reasoning to interpret (make sense of) your experiences and the feedback provided from your senses–Yes or no?
NOTE: If your answer is ‘Yes’, then there is no reason to address any of what follows, since you have confirmed what has been evident all along: you have reasoned your reasoning to be reliable. If the answer is ‘No’, then please tell me the means by which you confirm the reliability of your reasoning without appealing to your reasoning as your proof.
Two challenges to your claim:
1) If the alleged ‘reality’ you are appealing to here is the perceived product of your senses and reasoning (which is all you claim to ‘realistically ever have’. Remember?), then, you are most definitely engaged in vicious circularity, since you previously stated that you validate that (or any) ‘reality’ via what you have ‘experienced and seen’ through your senses and reasoning. All you’re doing is telling me that you believe your senses and reasoning are valid when you use them because the results given by your senses and reasoning tell you they are.
For instance, when you state ‘by then I am reporting reality’, you are simply assuming the reality (truth) of that statement based upon the unjustified assumption that the reliability of your senses and reasoning is itself, a reality. But how could you ever really know that to be the case without appealing to your senses and reasoning as the proof for the claim, (since, by your own admission, they are the sole means of gaining knowledge of anything within your worldview)? You can’t.
Again, while I am saddened that you continue to dogmatically embrace the irrational in order to avoid (suppress) what you don’t wish to acknowledge, I am encouraged that you, at least, want to continue to post it here for all to see. I can live with that.
2) Since not everyone’s perceptions of reality are true (valid), how do you know that any of yours are? According to you, you determine this based on the way your perceptions of reality comport with reality (as perceived by you). If your position here were true, then all posited ‘realities’ would be equally valid (including the reality that God exists and the Bible is true) since there would be no way to resolve conflicts in reasoning in such a universe, as there could be no conflicts in reasoning in such a universe. The very fact that you’re here and arguing as if Christianity is an invalid position, is proof positive that you don’t really believe what you say you do. Again, I remind you that such behavioral inconsistencies are a very sure sign of an irrational/false position.
I said: “I see. So you know YOUR senses and reasoning (which is what I am asking you about here) are giving you reliable results about these things based on the results (i.e. reality) produced by your….um….senses and reasoning?”
You said: again no. “My senses and reasoning are independent of the results at the onset.”
Did you use your reasoning to form this conclusion about your senses and reasoning? If so, there is no need to repeat for you the vicious circularity of what you are arguing. If not, please explain the process of forming conclusions APART from your reasoning in your worldview (especially since it is all you ‘realistically ever have’).
“Point of fact, I was wrong, many times about the particular subject, but as time wore on and the evidence was made clear, my conclusions began to comport with reality. Reality was the ultimate judge. Not me.”
So you know this conclusion about ‘reality’ is valid because of the way your other conclusions about ‘reality’ began to comport with the ‘reality’ you concluded? Got it! You still crack me up, Roo! : D
“I don’t need millions or billions of years to see that. It can (and has) been accomplished by people now.”
Please SHOW me where YOU have accomplished the process of ‘molecules to man’ evolution. Otherwise, why would you expect me to believe in such things? Surely not just because you (or others) say so? The floor is now yours, Roo—let’s see you change some swamp goo into a ‘You’. Otherwise, you have refuted evolution by your own arbitrary standard. Priceless!
“Acting on instinct with regards to stimuli requires literally no reasoning, thats the point of instinct.”
And since you reasoned that the reasoning by which you formed this conclusion is indeed valid, then it must be so, eh? Surely you jest.
“Snails have no higher intellect with regard to prey evasion,”
Ignoring for the moment that this is just another unjustified claim made via your (as of yet) unsubstantiated reasoning; what exactly do snails have to do with human reasoning? If you would now like to argue that everything you claim to be ‘true’ is, in fact, just a product of biochemical reactions/ processes within your ‘evolved’ brain (blind instinct), then one would ultimately have to point out that that very claim would itself be nothing more than the result of blind chemical reactions and processes occurring within your brain. As such, you don’t believe it because it is true, but because that is what your resulting brain chemistry makes you believe.
Again, the fact that you are arguing here as if one of our positions is true and the other is false, exposes the inconsistency of your professed position. After all, if my brain just happens to fizz Christianity due to processes beyond my control and yours fizzes atheism due to processes beyond your control, then what we have are just two ‘different’ fizzes, not something that is ‘true’ or ‘false’.
I said: “…….surely it would then be appropriate to ask such a one how he accounts for the numbers he just typed if he says they are not possible, no?”
You said: “”were this analogy congruous, sure.””
It is (as continues to be demonstrated).
“How did God do it? Omnipotence. You tell me which you want to extend to its conclusion. ”
Actually, both our positions have been extended to their conclusions. That is what has gotten you into this predicament. You admitted months ago that the Christian worldview provides a rational basis for knowing things with certainty while you, on the other hand, have been repeatedly reduced to absurdity. It’s hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of the impossibility of the contrary than that.
“the easiest way to shatter a world view is by showing then, “its not the way it just is”.
Which is most easily accomplished by exposing internal inconsistencies/absurdities within it. Check!
“That being, float me an ax head, Mike. Lets see some talking Donkeys. Lets see some burning bushes that aren’t consumed.”
I’ve already pointed out the fallaciousness of this line of argumentation. Must all truths be substantiated via empirical means in order to be valid? If so, where have you seen and experienced all truths such that you can substantiate that position?? Clearly this is not possible absent omniscience on your part, which makes the position of empiricism a self-refuting one (not to mention the fact that you accept the validity of a whole host of things that you haven’t seen or experienced such as: macro evolution, the very concept of truth itself, laws of logic, the reliability of your senses and reasoning, the concept of proof, the reliability of your memory, the uniformity of nature, laws of morality, etc.)
Seems like a good time to remind you again of your concession that Divine Revelation, in contrast, is indeed a (read: the only) logically possible avenue for knowing things for certain to be true.
Besides, I’m still waiting for YOU to demonstrate ‘swamp goo to Roo’ evolution for me. I won’t be holding my breath, though. I hear it takes a loooooooong time. ; )
“I know I can’t find the periodic table in the Bible. I know you have some spin as to why.”
No spin needed to point out that the Bible is not a science textbook. It does, however, provide us with the only rational basis for a belief in the basic uniformity of nature (induction), which just happens to be the very foundation for the scientific method upon which all science depends.
See, based upon God’s promises to uphold His Creation is a basically uniform fashion such that mankind can ‘subdue it and have dominion over it’ (Genesis Chapter 1 and elsewhere in the Bible), it makes sense to expect that the future will resemble the past in many ways such that past experience is a guide to future results. This assumption cannot be rationally defended outside of a Christian worldview (remember, we’ve already ruled out atheism and generic theism as logical possibilities in our prior discussion (and we continue to confirm the folly of atheism in this one)).
“I know I can’t find record of a world wide flood in reality.”
Sure you can. You just happen to arbitrarily reject the written historical record of that event in the Bible and then proceed to interpret any physical evidence presented to you to fit your naturalistic/atheistic presuppositions about the world.
Ultimately, though, the outcome of such a worldview is absurdity, as we have seen. Therefore, such a position is an impossible one and cannot be true.
“I know you have spin as to why. I know why people haven’t turned to salt as of late, and that snakes don’t talk.”
Actually, you have demonstrated that you don’t really ‘know’ anything at all, Faust…err…Roo. As such, you are again telling me about your opinions, which I do care about, but am not interested in for the sake of this discussion about what we KNOW and how we each claim to KNOW it. At this point, you are forced to concede that anything is possible in your worldview (since you can’t know that anything is absolutely impossible) and you, therefore, lose any grounds for your dismissal of the things you mentioned above–apart from a purely arbitrary whim.
The ironic thing is, it is your very arguments against the Biblical record of these events that only serves to confirm their truth (as it is only because the Bible is true that you can reason at all or even begin to formulate any logical argument (by the impossibility of the contrary). I am pleased with that!
“Your examples on “God” are short, which is why you turn to philosophy. God is being pushed into a smaller and smaller box, so of course you need to usurp more and more for Him to seem relevant. It’s okay to be scared. Just be honest about it.”
However, since that assertion is purely arbitrary and baseless, it is easily reversible. Watch: ‘Your proofs on ‘evolution/naturalism’ are faulty, which is why you are reduced to absurdity. Evolutionary theory is not logically defensible, so of course you need to posit more and more irrationality in order for it to seem relevant. It’s okay to be scared of the ramifications that come with abandoning it. Just be honest about it (and repent).’ How do you like your argument now?
I said: “Well, since you’re not an ancient Israelite living under God’s direct theocratic rule and, therefore, not bound by the civil and ceremonial mandates contained in the Levitical Law—I’m not surprised, really. ; )”
You said: so the 10 commandments don’t apply to you? 😉
Of course, since they constitute God’s absolute Moral Law! However, you seem to be confusing the civil and ceremonial mandates imposed specifically upon the ancient Israelites (regarding witches for instance), as well as confusing the application of the 4th commandment (Sabbath keeping) for Old Testament Jews vs. New Testament Christians—apples and oranges. This mistake is both typical understandable, though. I won’t fault you for it.
However, you should know that the penalty for transgressing God’s commands is the same today as it has always been—-physical death (whether immediate or postponed) followed by eternal damnation. So, in a sense, something did (and is) happening on your behalf, Roo. Wrath is being stored up against you to be meted out on the Day of Judgment if you die in your sins.
Of course, it goes without saying, I would personally prefer that you repent and trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before that happens. As I have mentioned to you before, He stands ready and willing to forgive ALL who sincerely call upon His name. That includes you (John 3:16).
“Secondly, I don’t need to rely on my interpretation of reality, you and I both have the same resources at our disposal regarding… well, anything,”
And if I asked you how you know for certain that that very conclusion is genuinely reflective of reality, you would no doubt be forced to ultimately appeal to your senses and reasoning (through which you perceived it and concluded it to be so) as your justification, the validity of which you claim to determine by appealing to the ‘reality’ perceived by those same senses and reasoning, the validity of which is determined by appealing to the senses and reasoning through which you perceived it……and round and round and round we go.
“Reality trumps philosophy, Mike”
And I should accept that particular philosophy as reality simply because you concluded it as such (via reasoning, the likes of which you trust solely on blind faith, no less??). Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
“And how did you sense the Bible was reasonable again, beyond your own senses and reasoning?”
The Bible is my Ultimate Authority and the foundation of my (and all) reasoning. One does not reason TO the foundation of their reasoning, rather they necessarily reason FROM that position as their starting point.
I said: “Only via the Bible can they be made sense of, however, since their abstract, universal, invariant nature comports with the immaterial, sovereign, unchanging nature of the God of the Bible”
You said: “”I feel this argument is a bit of a lie, since its been demonstrated that the God of the Bible is hardly unchanging.””
Actually, it’s been asserted, but surely not demonstrated—big difference. It does not follow that God changed because He temporarily superseded or suspended one aspect of His creation (namely laws of physics) in a specific time and place, during the performing of a miracle (which is a rare occurrence, by definition), as you have alleged. Creation is subject to some degree of change, by design, while the Creator (Who transcends His creation) does not. Again, apples and oranges.
I said: “As I have stated previously, I disagree that logic is ‘learned’.”
You said: “then please, explain your truth claim. Its not learned its something else. How does an infant realize even the most rudimentary aspects of what it should do in life.””
D-I-V-I-N-E R-E-V-E-L-A-T-I-O-N (by the impossibility of the contrary).
Logic is but one of the preconditions of intelligibility that are ‘hardwired’ into mankind which make it possible to be even begin to make sense of the world around us. Since logic is foundational to (and a necessary prerequisite for) ‘correct’ reasoning, it therefore cannot be something learned via human reasoning (as that would entail one arriving at logical laws via reasoning devoid of logic (illogical reasoning). Of course, that would be absurd.
“don’t have your own presuppositions built in?”
Of course! The difference is, mine (Christian ones) are rationally defensible after the fact, while non-Christian ones are not.
“Considering your creative definitions of knowledge and learning thus far,”
If by, ‘creative’ you mean ‘true and accurate’, then I appreciate the sentiments. Welcome to reality, Faust….errr….Roo! Man, you guys really are two peas in a pod!
Unfortunately, though, since you both are arguing the exact same thing, that means that you, like Faustian, would ultimately also be forced to admit that everything you claim to know could, in fact, be completely false (especially since you cannot soundly justify the basic reliability of your senses and reasoning in the first place, apart from blind faith).
That being the case, if your next post does not remedy this, then I am not likely to respond (same way I ceased responding to Faustian). After all, fair is fair, right? Can’t risk him getting his feelings hurt over something like this, since I don’t want to inadvertently burn any bridges with him just yet. Who knows, maybe he’ll change his mind one day and decide to posit something rational for us to discuss (or better yet, maybe he’ll just repent). I would welcome either (but preferably the latter). Take care! ; )
LikeLike
It seems the tag to reply no longer exists.
I said: “you are indeed asserting (yet again) that you have ‘reasoned your reasoning to be valid’. No matter how you slice it, or how you try to conceal it, that is (and will continue to be) the irrational result of your professed position.”
You said: “By then I am reporting reality.”
Simple question: Do you use your reasoning to interpret (make sense of) your experiences and the feedback provided from your senses–Yes or no?
—Of course. But by then, the lesson of such is already learned. There were past times when I didn’t, you see, and that didn’t work out well. But, having learned from that mistake (as we both agree an intelligent entity can do), it’s a moot point. Learning means things, Mike. Humans grow as a person, that includes intellectually.
1) If the alleged ‘reality’ you are appealing to here is the perceived product of your senses and reasoning (which is all you claim to ‘realistically ever have’. Remember?), then, you are most definitely engaged in vicious circularity, since you previously stated that you validate that (or any) ‘reality’ via what you have ‘experienced and seen’ through your senses and reasoning. All you’re doing is telling me that you believe your senses and reasoning are valid when you use them because the results given by your senses and reasoning tell you they are.
—Unless its reality that is learned from. Not too. See, there in is the difference. You claim the Bible, I claim reality.
For instance, when you state ‘by then I am reporting reality’, you are simply assuming the reality (truth) of that statement based upon the unjustified assumption that the reliability of your senses and reasoning is itself, a reality. But how could you ever really know that to be the case without appealing to your senses and reasoning as the proof for the claim, (since, by your own admission, they are the sole means of gaining knowledge of anything within your worldview)? You can’t.
—This is philosophically true of everyone, ever. I think its called a basal assumption, as such for our purposes, its moot. You assume it’s the Bible that you were divinely revealed (explanation pending(, though that requires senses in the first place, as well as reasoning to assess its validity, but those are frailties of your position you have been loathe to touch.
2) Since not everyone’s perceptions of reality are true (valid), how do you know that any of yours are?
— Wouldn’t you be better served to ask them why their perception of reality isn’t true? Like I stated, comports with reality, learned as such. If you have demonstration to something different, please, demonstrate it. This “talk” aspect of your position is getting tiresome. It holds no evidence, only philosophy.
I said: “I see. So you know YOUR senses and reasoning (which is what I am asking you about here) are giving you reliable results about these things based on the results (i.e. reality) produced by your….um….senses and reasoning?”
—- a leasson long since learned. Such is the nature of learning.
You said: again no. “My senses and reasoning are independent of the results at the onset.”
Did you use your reasoning to form this conclusion about your senses and reasoning?
—That isn’t a conclusion, it’s a point of fact. My senses and reasoning are independent of results. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise.
“Point of fact, I was wrong, many times about the particular subject, but as time wore on and the evidence was made clear, my conclusions began to comport with reality. Reality was the ultimate judge. Not me.”
So you know this conclusion about ‘reality’ is valid because of the way your other conclusions about ‘reality’ began to comport with the ‘reality’ you concluded? Got it! You still crack me up, Roo! : D
— what is your definition of “learning” again? You seemed to have glossed over that. Were you to examine Webster’s definition of the word, you might see how it applies.
“I don’t need millions or billions of years to see that. It can (and has) been accomplished by people now.”
Please SHOW me where YOU have accomplished the process of ‘molecules to man’ evolution.
—Strawman. I said something specific about scale. It stands to reason if I had 4 billion years, I could evolve a better strain of man. As it stands, I am stuck with fruit flies and mice and other lesser creatures.
“Acting on instinct with regards to stimuli requires literally no reasoning, thats the point of instinct.”
And since you reasoned that the reasoning by which you formed this conclusion is indeed valid, then it must be so, eh? Surely you jest.
— I await your demonstration to the contrary. Not a claim. Demonstration. I will happy demonstrate my assertion in the natural world if you would like me to.
“Snails have no higher intellect with regard to prey evasion,”
Ignoring for the moment that this is just another unjustified claim made via your (as of yet) unsubstantiated reasoning; what exactly do snails have to do with human reasoning?
—Reasoning is reasoning. “human” doesn’t matter. It’s a means to an end from drawn upon evidence. Prey evasion, prey hunting, shelter, survival… these are all positions that are both instinctual AND make use of reasoning skills. The likes of which you must now claim are divinely inspired to them, too, though this would mean you agree with instinctual behavior, a rather evolutionary trait.
If you would now like to argue that everything you claim to be ‘true’ is, in fact, just a product of biochemical reactions/ processes within your ‘evolved’ brain (blind instinct), then one would ultimately have to point out that that very claim would itself be nothing more than the result of blind chemical reactions and processes occurring within your brain. As such, you don’t believe it because it is true, but because that is what your resulting brain chemistry makes you believe.
— Well, at its most base, that is all human interaction is, as that’s where it goes, but this would be tantamount to calling a Sunday drive just a series of ignition and combustion cycles, which I think does short shrift to the conversation at hand.
I said: “…….surely it would then be appropriate to ask such a one how he accounts for the numbers he just typed if he says they are not possible, no?”
You said: “”were this analogy congruous, sure.””
It is (as continues to be demonstrated).
“How did God do it? Omnipotence. You tell me which you want to extend to its conclusion. ”
Actually, both our positions have been extended to their conclusions. That is what has gotten you into this predicament. You admitted months ago that the Christian worldview provides a rational basis for knowing things with certainty while you, on the other hand, have been repeatedly reduced to absurdity. It’s hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of the impossibility of the contrary than that.
—- so then unless you account for God’s omnipotence, logic and reasoning has no place in your worldview. Pretty simple.
“the easiest way to shatter a world view is by showing then, “its not the way it just is”.
Which is most easily accomplished by exposing internal inconsistencies/absurdities within it. Check!
— Is that your take away? First, you haven’t done that, at least not without exposing your own (omnipotence! Though how it works… who knows?!?!) position, second, you haven’t SHOWN anything. You have typed a lot. And, throughout our conversation, I repeatedly asked you if you would like evidence to my assertions. I was being considerate and not wanting to link to outside sources. You never took me up on the offer.
“That being, float me an ax head, Mike. Lets see some talking Donkeys. Lets see some burning bushes that aren’t consumed.”
I’ve already pointed out the fallaciousness of this line of argumentation.
— That being the fallaciousness of what you consider rational. You have stated you consider these things “rational”. Are you a rational person? Then do these rational things!
Must all truths be substantiated via empirical means in order to be valid?
— Yes.
If so, where have you seen and experienced all truths such that you can substantiate that position??
— All truths of all circumstances are not necessary to prove one. Can you play Poker? Do you need to know how to play “Go fish” to play Poker?
Seems like a good time to remind you again of your concession that Divine Revelation, in contrast, is indeed a (read: the only) logically possible avenue for knowing things for certain to be true.
— so, explain it. We have seen the warm up act, lets see exactly what this is! Unless its something done by virtue of omnipotence of course, then you will have to explain how omnipotence works to account for this divine revelation.
“I know I can’t find the periodic table in the Bible. I know you have some spin as to why.”
No spin needed to point out that the Bible is not a science textbook. It does, however, provide us with the only rational basis for a belief in the basic uniformity of nature (induction), which just happens to be the very foundation for the scientific method upon which all science depends. — and yet you make use of special pleading to demonstrate WHY such is not the case: God can alter reality as he sees fit, remember? I will hash tag it when it comes up.
See, based upon God’s promises to uphold His Creation is a basically uniform fashion such that mankind can ‘subdue it and have dominion over it’ (Genesis Chapter 1 and elsewhere in the Bible), it makes sense to expect that the future will resemble the past in many ways such that past experience is a guide to future results. This assumption cannot be rationally defended outside of a Christian worldview (remember, we’ve already ruled out atheism and generic theism as logical possibilities in our prior discussion (and we continue to confirm the folly of atheism in this one)).
—- um… what? ‘basically uniform’? What are the exceptions? Oh. ####
“I know I can’t find record of a world wide flood in reality.”
Sure you can. You just happen to arbitrarily reject the written historical record of that event in the Bible and then proceed to interpret any physical evidence presented to you to fit your naturalistic/atheistic presuppositions about the world.
— well, that, and reality doesn’t comport to what the Bible says. Excluding omnipotence, of course, which leads us to ###
“I know you have spin as to why. I know why people haven’t turned to salt as of late, and that snakes don’t talk.”
Actually, you have demonstrated that you don’t really ‘know’ anything at all, Faust…err…Roo. As such, you are again telling me about your opinions, which I do care about, but am not interested in for the sake of this discussion about what we KNOW and how we each claim to KNOW it. At this point, you are forced to concede that anything is possible in your worldview (since you can’t know that anything is absolutely impossible) and you, therefore, lose any grounds for your dismissal of the things you mentioned above–apart from a purely arbitrary whim.
— the leap that got you there, need I remind you, is of your invention.
The ironic thing is, it is your very arguments against the Biblical record of these events that only serves to confirm their truth (as it is only because the Bible is true that you can reason at all or even begin to formulate any logical argument (by the impossibility of the contrary). I am pleased with that!
—- and this is a result of divine revelation, which is (also) circular in nature, but rely on more systems than one that learns from reality rather than attempts to dictate it.
“Your examples on “God” are short, which is why you turn to philosophy. God is being pushed into a smaller and smaller box, so of course you need to usurp more and more for Him to seem relevant. It’s okay to be scared. Just be honest about it.”
However, since that assertion is purely arbitrary and baseless, it is easily reversible. Watch: ‘Your proofs on ‘evolution/naturalism’ are faulty, which is why you are reduced to absurdity. Evolutionary theory is not logically defensible, so of course you need to posit more and more irrationality in order for it to seem relevant. It’s okay to be scared of the ramifications that come with abandoning it. Just be honest about it (and repent).’ How do you like your argument now?
––Considering the source, and evidence of the sources assertion, pretty good. This is why “truths be substantiated via empirical means”. Otherwords, you can pawn off any ole “God said it, so it must be true” assertion. 😉
I said: “Well, since you’re not an ancient Israelite living under God’s direct theocratic rule and, therefore, not bound by the civil and ceremonial mandates contained in the Levitical Law—I’m not surprised, really. ; )”
You said: so the 10 commandments don’t apply to you? 😉
Of course, since they constitute God’s absolute Moral Law!
—-The Moral law that causes global floods? Pass.
However, you seem to be confusing the civil and ceremonial mandates imposed specifically upon the ancient Israelites (regarding witches for instance), as well as confusing the application of the 4th commandment (Sabbath keeping) for Old Testament Jews vs. New Testament Christians—apples and oranges. This mistake is both typical understandable, though. I won’t fault you for it.
—-Apples and oranges, so the 10 commandments DO apply to you, as well as the ancient Isrealistes? These make-them-up-as-you-go laws and dictates are confusing.
However, you should know that the penalty for transgressing God’s commands is the same today as it has always been—-physical death (whether immediate or postponed) followed by eternal damnation. So, in a sense, something did (and is) happening on your behalf, Roo. Wrath is being stored up against you to be meted out on the Day of Judgment if you die in your sins.
—- everyone dies, so claiming physical death is a punishment is like predicting the sun will set. Secondly, so, what you are stating is that all the wrath and omnipotence and good ole fiery retribution of an omnipotent God is found empirically after you die? You don’t see the problem with that as a backbone to your position?
“Secondly, I don’t need to rely on my interpretation of reality, you and I both have the same resources at our disposal regarding… well, anything,”
And if I asked you how you know for certain that that very conclusion is genuinely reflective of reality, you would no doubt be forced to ultimately appeal to your senses and reasoning (through which you perceived it and concluded it to be so) as your justification, the validity of which you claim to determine by appealing to the ‘reality’ perceived by those same senses and reasoning, the validity of which is determined by appealing to the senses and reasoning through which you perceived it……and round and round and round we go.
—- which means the fallaciousness should be easily broken by your demonstration. I am concluding we are both on the internet, right? SO that would mean any publication I have access to, you should have access to as well, unless of course this blog is coming from behind the Great Fire Wall. Do you NOT have the same resources informationally at our disposal? What do I have that you do not, or that you have that I do not?
“Reality trumps philosophy, Mike”
And I should accept that particular philosophy as reality simply because you concluded it as such (via reasoning, the likes of which you trust solely on blind faith, no less??). Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
—–No, you should accept that because its indeed the only way anything has ever been done. No great works were ever found to be great on paper alone (at least for purposes of this conversation). Again, if you find that “truth claim” to be untrue, please, demonstrate the contrary.
“And how did you sense the Bible was reasonable again, beyond your own senses and reasoning?”
The Bible is my Ultimate Authority and the foundation of my (and all) reasoning. One does not reason TO the foundation of their reasoning, rather they necessarily reason FROM that position as their starting point.
—and the explanation for this is forthcoming, I assume.
I said: “Only via the Bible can they be made sense of, however, since their abstract, universal, invariant nature comports with the immaterial, sovereign, unchanging nature of the God of the Bible”
You said: “”I feel this argument is a bit of a lie, since its been demonstrated that the God of the Bible is hardly unchanging.””
Actually, it’s been asserted, but surely not demonstrated—big difference. It does not follow that God changed because He temporarily superseded or suspended one aspect of His creation (namely laws of physics) in a specific time and place, during the performing of a miracle (which is a rare occurrence, by definition), as you have alleged. Creation is subject to some degree of change, by design, while the Creator (Who transcends His creation) does not. Again, apples and oranges.
— That shifts the burden. You have created a loophole for yourself, now any time I bring something up, it is subject to your “creation is subject to some degree of change”. That not withstanding, were I to one day state flooding the earth is in my purview, and the next day not, that is not “unchanging”. Saving a city for 50, no 45, no 30 men is not “unchanging”. Making use of deluding influence is not “truthful”.
I said: “As I have stated previously, I disagree that logic is ‘learned’.”
You said: “then please, explain your truth claim. Its not learned its something else. How does an infant realize even the most rudimentary aspects of what it should do in life.””
D-I-V-I-N-E R-E-V-E-L-A-T-I-O-N (by the impossibility of the contrary).
—-That is a “name”. Not an explanation. How do you play poker? You play poker. How is divine revelation done? Its divinely revealed. EXPLAIN the claim. By what process is this done? Omnipotence? Then explain omnipotence. Unable? Then you cannot account for logic and reasoning.
Logic is but one of the preconditions of intelligibility that are ‘hardwired’ into mankind which make it possible to be even begin to make sense of the world around us. Since logic is foundational to (and a necessary prerequisite for) ‘correct’ reasoning, it therefore cannot be something learned via human reasoning (as that would entail one arriving at logical laws via reasoning devoid of logic (illogical reasoning). Of course, that would be absurd.
—- this is a good explanation as to why you think something occurs, however is devoid of an explanation in the first place. What you are calling “hard wired”, I am calling “instinct”, btw. Its good to see you are coming round to an evolutionary/atheistic world view. Instinct gives rise to survival, which gives rise to more complex specie through natural selection.
“Considering your creative definitions of knowledge and learning thus far,”
If by, ‘creative’ you mean ‘true and accurate’, then I appreciate the sentiments.
— I don’t. Webster’s agrees with me. So does Oxford.
Unfortunately, though, since you both are arguing the exact same thing, that means that you, like Faustian, would ultimately also be forced to admit that everything you claim to know could, in fact, be completely false (especially since you cannot soundly justify the basic reliability of your senses and reasoning in the first place, apart from blind faith).
—careful. You are now claiming everything you know is because of omnipotence, something you haven’t explained. Applying your bench mark, that puts you on even worse footing.
LikeLike
“It seems the tag to reply no longer exists.”
Must be a glitch. Perhaps it will fix itself (hopefully not via evolution though. That would take forever and we might not even recognize it afterwards!!). : )
I asked: “Simple question: Do you use your reasoning to interpret (make sense of) your experiences and the feedback provided from your senses–Yes or no?”
You said: “”Of course.””
Thank you for your honesty. Sadly, though, you have confirmed what I have been stating all along—you are stuck in the vicious circularity of appealing to your senses and reasoning as the means by which you verify the validity of your senses and reasoning. After all, you just recently stated that it is because of what you ‘sense and experience’ (via your reasoning) that you believe your reasoning to be valid . Like it or not, even restating it in a myriad of different ways and with a multitude of different phrases does not negate its absurdity.
“”But by then, the lesson of such is already learned.””
However, since the ‘lesson’ (which in this case is the reliability of your reasoning) IS the thing you claim to have ‘learned’ (via your reasoning), all you’re doing is re-stating the argument that you ‘learned’ (via your reasoning) that your reasoning is reliable.
Or, to make the error even plainer, you are assuming that your claim of ‘by then, the lesson of such is already learned’ is, itself, a valid lesson learned, based upon the lesson about the reliability of your reasoning you learned by means of that same reasoning. If you can’t/ won’t see the problem with that, then there is not much I can do for you here.
See, if reasoning is the ultimate standard by which we validate our reasoning, then everyone’s reasoning is always valid. ‘But wait’, you say. ‘It is against the standard of ‘reality’ that we actually validate our reasoning’. And when I ask how you determine what is ‘real’, well, it turns out that that is also done by means of….(yep, you guessed it)……your reasoning.
Now, I don’t know about you, but where I come from, viciously circular arguments cannot be used a means of logical argumentation to arrive at knowledge/truth. Sadly, the net result of all this is that you have forfeited any basis for the existence of truth or knowledge in your worldview, since you can’t know that your senses and reasoning are themselves reliable to begin with. Of course, you do behave as if you can know things and that your senses and reasoning are reliable, therefore, you don’t live in accordance with what your professed views of the world around you (your worldview). Again, I remind you that, inconsistencies like this are the sure signs of a false position (and, in this case, suppression of the Truth).
At this point, I see no need to go through and address each of the subsequent claims you are making here (which you, ultimately, have no logical basis for believing to be true to begin with), however, it might be helpful to point out some of the more obvious and egregious errors you’re making here—not to bring excessive shame, mind you—but in hopes that you will come to realize the additional unavoidable folly that ensues when one denies the God of the Bible as their ultimate Authority.
“This is philosophically true of everyone, ever.”
See what I mean. I mean, how does an atheist ever justify a universal truth claim with only their limited senses and experiences of the universe to go on? They can’t. Therefore, this is just an unproven and unprovable assertion made without any basis whatsoever apart from blind faith. Of course, blind faith is but one form of irrationality.
“You assume it’s the Bible that you were divinely revealed (explanation pending(, though that requires senses in the first place, as well as reasoning to assess its validity, but those are frailties of your position you have been loathe to touch.”
This assumes that God could not (or did not) reveal the validity of our senses and reasoning via direct revelation, completely APART from them, such that it can be known for certain to be true. We’ve already seen the absurdity that the contrary position leads to here (not to mention that you have already conceded that God could reveal things this way). Therefore, there is no basis for what you are assuming here, apart from blind faith.
“Wouldn’t you be better served to ask them why their perception of reality isn’t true?”
Not if I’m asking YOU about the basis of YOUR worldview and how you know the things you claim to know are true in the first place. Besides, the very question undermines your stated position since, if your position were true, everyone’s reasoning would be validated by their reasoning and there could be no such thing as ‘invalid’ reasoning. People’s brains would necessarily just think the way they think, according to the results of their biochemical makeup, and the resulting differing ‘realities’ produced by each would be just that—‘different’, not ‘true’ or ‘untrue’. Of course, you don’t really live that way (as continues to be demonstrated).
“I said something specific about scale. It stands to reason if I had 4 billion years, I could evolve a better strain of man.”
Of course, that’s a fine example of purely speculative, faith based, thinking (regarding the unobserved and unobservable future, no less). However, I wasn’t asking you to do that (micro evolution). I was asking you to make me a full-fledged man out of some other ‘kind’ of creature–say, a fruit fly or mouse, for instance (macro evolution).
According your own professed standard, the fact that you have not done so proves that molecules to man (macro) evolution did not happen. Of course, you don’t accept that, so it is reasonable to conclude that you were just employing an irrational double standard regarding this. Either way, I am pleased.
“The likes of which you must now claim are divinely inspired to them, too, though this would mean you agree with instinctual behavior, a rather evolutionary trait.”
Nope. I agree that instincts exist per the design of a common Creator and that cognizant, rational reasoning has nothing to do with instinct. Again, we have already seen the absurdity that one is ultimately reduced to when they deny that fact. As a matter of fact, I do believe that that is the very definition of the impossibility of the contrary!
Furthermore, to compare the purely reflexive and stereotypically instinctual behaviors exhibited by animals (snails, etc.) with the conscious, rational, creative, mind and reasoning processes of human beings, commits the ultimate fallacy of ‘false analogy’ since you have not shown (and cannot show) that the two are in any way congruous (or that one gives rise to the other (via evolutionary processes) since you could never observe that). After all, how do unconscious patterns of blind instinctive behavior equate to the unique, conscious ability to arrive at known abstract truths (especially those about ones own reasoning)?
If our reasoning was just one (or any) form of mere deterministic ‘reflexive’ reaction (like sneezing), you could never know that to be true, as that which simply ‘is’ can never get us to ‘this is true’ (especially if you espouse a position that gives you no basis for trusting your own reasoning in the first place).
I said: “If you would now like to argue that everything you claim to be ‘true’ is, in fact, just a product of biochemical reactions/ processes within your ‘evolved’ brain (blind instinct), then one would ultimately have to point out that that very claim would itself be nothing more than the result of blind chemical reactions and processes occurring within your brain. As such, you don’t believe it because it is true, but because that is what your resulting brain chemistry makes you believe.
You said: “Well, at its most base, that is all human interaction is, as that’s where it goes, but this would be tantamount to calling a Sunday drive just a series of ignition and combustion cycles, which I think does short shrift to the conversation at hand.”
Once again, the problem with this is that ‘thought’ of yours is, itself, also but a by-product of the chemical processes in your brain which are beyond your control. Again, that doesn’t equate to ‘truth’, only a ‘different’ resulting chemical reaction than mine. Of course, you don’t (and can’t) live that way, either.
“so then unless you account for God’s omnipotence, logic and reasoning has no place in your worldview. “
However, this is a purely arbitrary (and irrelevant) claim given what we’re actually discussing. This conversation is about you and I both telling how we are able to KNOW things to be true in our competing worldviews (Christian theistic vs. atheistic). We have both provided our accounts for how we do so. You agreed that the way I account for my ability to know things for certain is a logically possible one (as the record plainly shows). You then posited your claim, which is not logically possible (since it is viciously circular and, therefore, fallacious by definition).
Therefore, as of now, only one of us has posited a logically defensible claim to defend. If you don’t have one, it doesn’t matter how you feel about mine, or what the specifics of it are, as those details would be the things we would hash out AFTER you provide yours for discussion. See, Roo, that’s the way logical discourse works: I posit my rationally defensible argument to support my position, you posit yours, THEN we discuss to see whose is true.
Obviously we can’t discuss the details of OUR respective arguments if you don’t have a valid one to present! At this point, you are in the unenviable position of attempting to use logic and reasoning to undermine the only possible basis for those things. Unless, of course, you would now like to argue that viciously circular arguments are, in fact, a logically valid means of proving things true. I wouldn’t recommend that you do that, though.
“All truths of all circumstances are not necessary to prove one.”
Um, it is if what you’re trying to prove is a claim regarding ‘ALL TRUTH’. However, if you’d like to now amend your prior claim about ‘all’ truth and state that you only believe ‘one’ (or even ‘some’) truth must come through the senses and reasoning (which is the most you could ever say anyway, if I granted you the validity of your senses and reasoning, which I don’t), then I am fine with that. It would then follow that it is possible for some truths to be known APART from the senses and reasoning (like from Divine Revelation, for instance), which is what has already been agreed upon by us both already (as the record still clearly shows).
Also, since any truth is certain by definition (and cannot be false at the same time and in the same way anywhere), universal knowledge or access to it (via Revelation from One who possesses it) is a necessary precondition for knowing anything to be true (by the impossibility of the contrary). This is why your position (which does not allow for Divine Revelation) cannot provide you with any basis whatsoever for arriving at any knowledge of truth. As a result, you must borrow such concepts from the worldview in which they do make sense—Biblical Christianity.
Of course, I should remind you that, borrowing concepts from my worldview (that cannot possibly exist in your own) in order to even begin to argue against my worldview, is woefully self-refuting (and irrational).
“so, explain it. We have seen the warm up act, lets see exactly what this is! Unless its something done by virtue of omnipotence of course, then you will have to explain how omnipotence works to account for this divine revelation.”
A little more on this: In addition to it being completely arbitrary and irrelevant (see above), it is also a fallacious double standard. It would be similar to me telling you that you must explain to me the intricate, inner workings of your brain and the precise nuances of the methods and processes by which the communications take place between its synapses and hemispheres, etc., in order to account for your ability to reason. That, of course, would be absurd (not to mention unfair).
I have simply asked you to share with me your rational justification for what we both know to be true regarding the basic reliability of our reasoning, to see how you arrive at that knowledge while espousing a competing worldview to mine. Your argument wasn’t invalid because you couldn’t explain a bunch of intricate details mentioned above (which you may or may not even know), but because the proof you offered to support your position was a viciously circular one to begin with. In contrast, as a Christian, I can (and have) presented you with a sound justification for how I claim to know for certain that my reasoning is valid (as you have conceded). What you are doing now, is simply attempting to ‘move the goalposts’ and skip to evaluating the details of my claim without having to put forth a valid one of your own (your ‘warm up’). This is simply a means of trying to avoid acknowledging the only logically possible position that has been proven here (by the impossibility of the contrary). I trust I don’t have to tell you that such behavior is also yet another form of irrationality, no?
“um… what? ‘basically uniform’? What are the exceptions? Oh. ####”
And, since the exceptions are rare (by definition), they in no way undermine or invalidate our ability to reasonably proceed with the expectation that nature will remain BASICALLY uniform such that we can expect the future to resemble the past in many ways. QED.
“Otherwords, you can pawn off any ole “God said it, so it must be true” assertion. ;)”
However, this is not a ‘God-of-the-gaps’ argument, as you seem to be alleging. It is an irrefutable, valid proof (as you have conceded) which demonstrates the God of the Bible as being the necessary foundation for the very preconditions of intelligibility that make it possible to make sense of or to prove anything in the first place.
If anything, you are guilty of using an ‘atheism-of-the-gaps’ (i.e. ‘scientists said it/evolution did it so it must be true’) approach here, with regards to how you attempt to justify the existence of these same preconditions in your worldview. As such, you must accept all these things solely on blind faith alone (because they could not exist if your position were true. Therefore, it is false).
Remember, you’ve never seen a man evolve from another creature, nor have you performed this act yourself (although you did claim wishfully that you would have, if only…..), yet you wholeheartedly continue to embrace a belief in the process based on the word of fallible men who also weren’t there to see it, but claim it is so. If that ain’t blind faith, I don’t know what is.
“The Moral law that causes global floods?”
The Moral Law was actually post-Flood. That aside, that’s like arguing that the speed limit causes tickets. It was man’s wickedness and rebellion against an infinite, holy God that was ultimately the cause for the Flood. Thankfully, since all morality and righteousness is ultimately grounded in the absolute character of God, we know for certain and rest in the fact that God has a very good, morally sufficient reason for everything He does (including the Flood). There is simply no basis for assuming otherwise.
Besides, the fact that God chooses (then and now) to save anyone at all is but a demonstration of His unspeakable grace and kindness.
“Apples and oranges, so the 10 commandments DO apply to you, as well as the ancient Isrealistes? “
Of course, as they are absolute! The difference in the observance of 4th Commandment by an ancient Israelite vs. a New Testament Christian (based on the Progressive Revelation that Christ is now the believer’s Sabbath rest), has nothing to do with the absoluteness of the command. Again, apples and oranges.
“everyone dies, so claiming physical death is a punishment is like predicting the sun will set.”
The difference is, you have no rationally defensible justification for assuming that either WILL happen, whereas the Christian does.
“Secondly, so, what you are stating is that all the wrath and omnipotence and good ole fiery retribution of an omnipotent God is found empirically after you die? You don’t see the problem with that as a backbone to your position?”
No problem at all, since the knowledge of it is objectively revealed on this side, via God’s Word, such that we can be certain of its truth (and, therefore, escape that fate via obedience to the Gospel). There is simply no rational objection that can be levied against it (as we have seen).
I said: “And if I asked you how you know for certain that that very conclusion is genuinely reflective of reality, you would no doubt be forced to ultimately appeal to your senses and reasoning (through which you perceived it and concluded it to be so) as your justification, the validity of which you claim to determine by appealing to the ‘reality’ perceived by those same senses and reasoning, the validity of which is determined by appealing to the senses and reasoning through which you perceived it……and round and round and round we go.
You said: “which means the fallaciousness should be easily broken by your demonstration.”
It is (as you’ve admitted). Thanks for acknowledging that your positon is, indeed, a fallacious one though. Progress!
“Do you NOT have the same resources informationally at our disposal? What do I have that you do not, or that you have that I do not?”
A logically defensible ultimate Authority. Of course, I hope (and pray) that will change for you.
“No great works were ever found to be great on paper alone (at least for purposes of this conversation). Again, if you find that “truth claim” to be untrue, please, demonstrate the contrary.”
Actually, the burden is on you. Like I said, the floor is yours…..wake me when its over. ; )
On that note, though, it is funny, how easily some folks are willing to arbitarily reject/dismiss the very intellectual tenets and implications of philosophy (or anything else, for that matter) when they find their position to be on the wrong side of it. Don’t you think so?
I said: The Bible is my Ultimate Authority and the foundation of my (and all) reasoning. One does not reason TO the foundation of their reasoning, rather they necessarily reason FROM that position as their starting point.
You replied: “and the explanation for this is forthcoming, I assume.”
Tell me which part is giving you trouble and I’ll see what I can do.
I said: “Creation is subject to some degree of change, by design, while the Creator (Who transcends His creation) does not. Again, apples and oranges.”
You replied: “That shifts the burden. You have created a loophole for yourself, now any time I bring something up, it is subject to your “creation is subject to some degree of change”. That not withstanding, were I to one day state flooding the earth is in my purview, and the next day not, that is not “unchanging”.
Please show me where this indicates a change in God instead of a consistent fulfillment of His predetermined, Sovereign will.
“Saving a city for 50, no 45, no 30 men is not “unchanging”.”
Same request as above.
“Making use of deluding influence is not “truthful”.”
Why not? Why is it not possible that a sovereign God, in His infinite wisdom, could allow for and utilize the existence of ‘deluding influences’ for the fulfillment of a perfectly righteous, holy purpose (such as the ultimate prevailing of Truth over such influences, for instance) in such a way that His integrity remained untarnished?
There is simply no rationally defensible argument that can be raised against this possibility (especially since one would necessarily be appealing to ‘truth’ in order to argue against the only possible source and standard of Truth).
“I don’t. Webster’s agrees with me. So does Oxford.”
And, since you agree with me, I guess we all agree! After all, what is the purpose of your very statement above if not to attempt to show that your professed belief about knowledge is both justified and true? As such, you’ve only demonstrated (even if unwittingly) the very thing you are trying to disprove (namely, that knowledge is, accurately described as a justified true belief). Any proof offered against that claim necessarily assumes the truth of it, as you have shown. QED.
However, if you continue to dispute this, here is another exercise for you to try: tell me something that you claim to know for which you have no justification and/or which isn’t true, and I will show you that you don’t know it, you only believe it.
Well, that should just about do it, Faust…errrrr…..Roo. Remember, I am here to help you honestly think through these issues if you need me. You are (and have been) in my prayers. Take care!
LikeLike
“Of course, I should remind you that, borrowing concepts from my worldview (that cannot possibly exist in your own) in order to even begin to argue against my worldview, is woefully self-refuting (and irrational).” —Oh. Well, then since you borrowed whole cloth the reason for religion, in general, from an atheistic view point… that would make your argument… what, exactly?
“However, since the ‘lesson’ (which in this case is the reliability of your reasoning) IS the thing you claim to have ‘learned’ (via your reasoning), all you’re doing is re-stating the argument that you ‘learned’ (via your reasoning) that your reasoning is reliable.” — yes. That is the definition of learning, something we both agree an intelligent creature can do. Now that we have just rationally and logically concluded the results of “learning”, I trust that part of the conversation is over, and can expect your retractions soon. It seems as though you simply don’t want to allow intelligent creatures to learn, even though this is what learning entails. If an intelligent creature has the capacity to learn, you have yet to explain why reasoning is not part and parcel to that from onset of the ability of the senses to sense. Why specifically is reasoning excluded?
“Now, I don’t know about you, but where I come from, viciously circular arguments cannot be used a means of logical argumentation to arrive at knowledge/truth.” — and the Bible says that God is the always truthful, etc, etc, As I stated previously, you are built on a circularity of men’s creation. Whether or not you choose to apply what “learning” means is again, not my concern.
“See what I mean. I mean, how does an atheist ever justify a universal truth claim with only their limited senses and experiences of the universe to go on? They can’t. ” — stop talking and do it, mostly. Again, talk and stuff is nice, but… no great works every came from talking. Nothing was every proved by talking. Its philopophy. But, actually doing or demonstration, on the other hand, trumps. Which is why I have been asking to provide demonstration of my assertion, and you have declined. You know better. 😉
“This assumes that God could not (or did not) reveal the validity of our senses and reasoning via direct revelation, completely APART from them, such that it can be known for certain to be true. We’ve already seen the absurdity that the contrary position leads to here (not to mention that you have already conceded that God could reveal things this way). Therefore, there is no basis for what you are assuming here, apart from blind faith.” —- could but HOW. By what method? You keep saying its a “double standard” fallacy, but I don’t think you know how that works. You ask ME by what method, I ask YOU by what method. A double standard infers you need NOT do that, even though its your bench mark. You have created a second (double) standard for yourself.
“Not if I’m asking YOU about the basis of YOUR worldview and how you know the things you claim to know are true in the first place. ” — because of appropriate demonstration, that being the situation in question comports to reality. It was learned as such. At some points in time, it was not learned, and the response to evidence was random, but….. intelligent creatures and can learn (which is part of an atheistic world view, too) and here we are. No God required.
“Furthermore, to compare the purely reflexive and stereotypically instinctual behaviors exhibited by animals (snails, etc.) with the conscious, rational, creative, mind and reasoning processes of human beings, commits the ultimate fallacy of ‘false analogy’ since you have not shown (and cannot show) that the two are in any way congruous (or that one gives rise to the other (via evolutionary processes) since you could never observe that). After all, how do unconscious patterns of blind instinctive behavior equate to the unique, conscious ability to arrive at known abstract truths (especially those about ones own reasoning)?” —- I can offer evidence to my assertion, are you interested in reading it? Secondly, its not a false analogy. Both instinctive/reflexive reaction make use of stimuli (evidence) for a proper (reasonable) reaction to occur. Just because its not a higher brain function involving conscious thought doesn’t mean a reasoning assessment isn’t being done. I just need to know if you are going to decline wading through execution and documentation I can produce, or if you would rather stick with your assertion, which seems to be made from ignorance.
“Um, it is if what you’re trying to prove is a claim regarding ‘ALL TRUTH’.” — and I’m not. I am trying to explain to you the truth of logic and reasoning. Do you feel that logic and reasoning is “ALL TRUTH”, that being logic and reasoning is the explanation of truth as the rules of football? As much as I appreciate your desire to move the conversation to a place where you can misrepresent what I say (don’t say you haven’t, you have been called on it many times), I would prefer you tackle the subject at hand, rather than the one not discussed. Since I am talking about truth and reasoning, I will specifically state if I want to change subjects. Thanks.
““so, explain it. We have seen the warm up act, lets see exactly what this is! Unless its something done by virtue of omnipotence of course, then you will have to explain how omnipotence works to account for this divine revelation.”
A little more on this: In addition to it being completely arbitrary and irrelevant (see above), it is also a fallacious double standard. It would be similar to me telling you that you must explain to me the intricate, inner workings of your brain and the precise nuances of the methods and processes by which the communications take place between its synapses and hemispheres, etc., in order to account for your ability to reason. That, of course, would be absurd (not to mention unfair).” —- Its your benchmark, Mike. I already made mention that you aren’t using “double standard” fallacy correctly. To wit: you ask me how logic and reasoning develops. I stated its learned. You disagree, and ask how its learned. I give my best explanation, and you still disagree. Fine. I ask you how logic and reasoning develops. You state “divine revelation”. I disagree, and ask how something is divinely revealed. You haven’t given any explanation. Its not a double standard if I am asking for what you ask of me, you see. That is quid pro quo. If you would like specifics about brain function, sure, but its a lot more links, and a lot more trudging, and frankly, I have seen with what derision that is met with. Its simply not worth the time for a mis-called fallacy.
“In contrast, as a Christian, I can (and have) presented you with a sound justification for how I claim to know for certain that my reasoning is valid (as you have conceded). “—
Negative, sound justification and logical possibility are two separate things. You what you have posited is a logical possibility in as much as it has no contradictions: that is all.
“What you are doing now, is simply attempting to ‘move the goalposts’ and skip to evaluating the details of my claim without having to put forth a valid one of your own (your ‘warm up’). ” — well, despite my best endeavors to explain it to you, you simply dismiss it. That doesn’t mean one hasn’t been put forth. And, yet again, you are misquoting how a fallacy works. The goal post is a criteria for an explanation of logic and reasoning, whether you decide to accept it or not is irrelevant to that goal post. Me asking YOU for your justification of etc etc has nothing to do with where I need to go.
“This is simply a means of trying to avoid acknowledging the only logically possible position that has been proven here (by the impossibility of the contrary). I trust I don’t have to tell you that such behavior is also yet another form of irrationality, no?” — then you mean its a red herring. A distraction. However if the goal is to “compare”, this would mean we both list out the hows and whats of our positions, and if possible provide example to actually compare them. You haven’t explained the how, just pointed to God and said “he did it”. Is that rational discourse to you? I could save you LOADS of bandwidth on your website if thats the case.
““um… what? ‘basically uniform’? What are the exceptions? Oh. ####”
And, since the exceptions are rare (by definition), they in no way undermine or invalidate our ability to reasonably proceed with the expectation that nature will remain BASICALLY uniform such that we can expect the future to resemble the past in many ways. QED.” —- then by definition,rare means the laws of reality and logic aren’t laws. Laws of nature aren’t rarely broken, correct? They wouldn’t be a law if they were. This makes, according to your world view, reasoning and logic as a function for a large majority of the time, but…. in a few small instances, logic is not dependable. And as such, according to your bench mark, irrational due to unreliability. Reasoning takes a back seat to irrational circumstance of a divine agency. I’m sorry, Mike, that is not “Absolute”. Thank you for your honesty.
“Remember, you’ve never seen a man evolve from another creature, nor have you performed this act yourself (although you did claim wishfully that you would have, if only…..), yet you wholeheartedly continue to embrace a belief in the process based on the word of fallible men who also weren’t there to see it, but claim it is so. If that ain’t blind faith, I don’t know what is.” —- I didn’t wishfully claim it. I stated I could with a few billion years. Its no more wishfully stated than a man who claims he could catch more fish in a lake with fish in it if he had more time to do so. Now, on to this “see it for themselves” malarkey…. I have to ask… do you know what forensic science is? Are you sure you would like to profess that the ONLY way to be sure some one murdered some one else is to see it? How inclined to believe “Oh, I am holding for a friend…” are you?
“That aside, that’s like arguing that the speed limit causes tickets. It was man’s wickedness and rebellion against an infinite, holy God that was ultimately the cause for the Flood.” — no, I am confident the Flood was caused by God. Tickets come from a desire of authority to exact punitive measure. This Flood example also has serious questions about God’s desire to kill even the unborn, too, but thus far you haven’t demonstrated how genocide is moral. Well?
“No problem at all, since the knowledge of it is objectively revealed on this side, via God’s Word, such that we can be certain of its truth (and, therefore, escape that fate via obedience to the Gospel). There is simply no rational objection that can be levied against it (as we have seen).” — the Gods word that States God can’t Lie, and the Bible itself is true because its God’s word, circular argument, forcing you to plead (specially) that because its a divinely inspired circularity, its okay. 2 fallacies for the price of one. And, in this instance, I am sure you can agree that said fallacies are aptly called.
“Actually, the burden is on you. Like I said, the floor is yours…..wake me when its over. ; )” —- The burden on me is to prove something doesn’t happen? Mike, I appreciated wanting to shift the BoP, but this one is an easy one. Its a demonstration of existence. My evidence is “creation”. Ranging from the Constitution to the blue prints for the Eiffel tower. From the Saturn V to the LHC. These all are evidence that chit chat on paper pales in comparison to life off the page. If you have a great work or great thing that exists solely on paper with regards to this conversation, please, offer it up!
“Tell me which part is giving you trouble and I’ll see what I can do.” — the means by which something is ‘divinely inspired’.
“Same request as above.” — do you need a definition of “change of mind”? On day one, I state my will is unchanging, and I will always eat spicy foods. On day 2, I exclude ghost peppers, because that is too hot, but everything is okay. That is not an unchanging will, its subject to an arbitrary state of preference. Just like God’s decision to NOT flood the earth again. Its a personal preference, not a commitment by an unchanging mind, or eternal will.
“Why not? Why is it not possible that a sovereign God, in His infinite wisdom, could allow for and utilize the existence of ‘deluding influences’ for the fulfillment of a perfectly righteous, holy purpose (such as the ultimate prevailing of Truth over such influences, for instance) in such a way that His integrity remained untarnished?” —- because thats a lie, Mike. God doesn’t do that, according to you.
” tell me something that you claim to know for which you have no justification and/or which isn’t true, and I will show you that you don’t know it, you only believe it.” — I think you might have misworded something here. It sounds pretty straight forward to both our arguments.
Now, onto the main rebuttal:
Learning – the acquisition of knowledge or skill through experience.
We both agree that intelligent beings can do this. You claim learning “reasoning” is possible through alternate means, I need no such alternate means, its strictly tied to the intelligent being. In any case, we both agree its possible.
Through the definition listed above, “critical thinking” or “logical deduction” could easily be classified as a skill. If we both agree that intelligent beings can learn, so why MUST this particular skill be one of divine revelation without immediately being (rightly) called on a special pleading? As it stands, the premises we agree on don’t need God to be inserted, rationally. Sure, you can say it borrows from a Christian world view, but then I go back to stating Christianity makes sense and in an atheistic world view, and nothing is accomplished.
Second, regression: from the Bible, not to it. Evidence (tangible) of course not present, I am then forced to wonder what those ancient Isrealites reasoned from, assuming your position is to hold true. They would be reasoning from an incomplete source, correct?
“basically” and “rare”. These two charming little words undermined your whole argument about unchanging, universal truth. You now will have to (take note) move the goal posts to include those rarities as part of rational circumstance. If reality is to be universal, and logic and reasoning is to be universal, there cannot be times, even “rarely” in which they don’t function.
“Hard Wired”. AKA instinct. Action preference or impetus which superceeds conscious thought. A great trait to have, evolutionary speaking. Hard wired exists in an evolutionary world view. Don’t borrow from it. 😉
Lastly: definitions themselves. Due to your creative ways of interpreting what knowledge and truth are, I am forced to ask you to use common parlance, that being the one’s found in say… Websters.
LikeLike
I said: “However, since the ‘lesson’ (which in this case is the reliability of your reasoning) IS the thing you claim to have ‘learned’ (via your reasoning), all you’re doing is re-stating the argument that you ‘learned’ (via your reasoning) that your reasoning is reliable.”
You said: yes.
Thank you again for your honesty here! Again, this admission once again reveals that the basis for which you claim to arrive at knowledge in your worldview is, indeed, a viciously circular one. That is, you begin with blind faith in the validity of your reasoning, and end with blind faith in the validity of your reasoning.
“That is the definition of learning, something we both agree an intelligent creature can do.”
And since ‘learning’ and ‘intelligence’ both assume valid reasoning, neither is possible in your worldview. When you appeal to these concepts, and act as if they are possible, you are simply being inconsistent with what you profess to believe and, in effect, abandoning said worldview.
“Now that we have just rationally and logically concluded the results of “learning”,”
Actually, concluding the validity of your reasoning via the results of that same reasoning is the very opposite of ‘logical’ behavior. After all, you are merely stating that you believe it is true that your reasoning is valid because you reasoned that it is true that your reasoning is valid. Again, I am perfectly fine with your desire to continue positing that here. In fact, thank you!
“and the Bible says that God is the always truthful, etc, etc, As I stated previously, you are built on a circularity of men’s creation.”
I won’t worry too much about that allegation, though, given what you have just admitted above (and elsewhere) regarding the reliability of the reasoning used to form it.
“stop talking and do it, mostly. Again, talk and stuff is nice, but… no great works every came from talking. Nothing was every proved by talking.”
Including that? Gotcha’! : D
“Which is why I have been asking to provide demonstration of my assertion, and you have declined.”
Just wanted to find out what the basis is for the validity of everything you claim to be true in the first place. Almost wish I hadn’t asked now, for your sake. But, I’m glad I did, as the truth only hurts when it should.
I said: “This assumes that God could not (or did not) reveal the validity of our senses and reasoning via direct revelation, completely APART from them, such that it can be known for certain to be true. We’ve already seen the absurdity that the contrary position leads to here (not to mention that you have already conceded that God could reveal things this way). Therefore, there is no basis for what you are assuming here, apart from blind faith.”
You responded: “could but HOW. By what method?”
Um, direct revelation is the method, the possibility of which you just conceded (again).
“No God required.”
Riiiiiiiiiiight. Thanks for demonstrating what that assertion ultimately amounts to. Very helpful!
“I can offer evidence to my assertion, are you interested in reading it? Secondly, its not a false analogy. Both instinctive/reflexive reaction make use of stimuli (evidence) for a proper (reasonable) reaction to occur. Just because its not a higher brain function involving conscious thought doesn’t mean a reasoning assessment isn’t being done. I just need to know if you are going to decline wading through execution and documentation I can produce, or if you would rather stick with your assertion, which seems to be made from ignorance.”
“Seems to”, based on what? Reasoning that you trust on blind faith alone? What is that to me?
I said: “Um, it is if what you’re trying to prove is a claim regarding ‘ALL TRUTH’.”
You said: “and I’m not.”
Oh? Guess you forget about this little gem from 8/12/15 (8:24 am):
I asked: Must ALL TRUTHS (emphasis mine) be substantiated via empirical means in order to be valid?
You replied: Yes.
See what reasoning validated by reasoning leads to, Roo? ; )
“I ask you how logic and reasoning develops.”
One doesn’t ‘develop’ them. Rather, they are presupposed as true. However, only a Biblical worldview provides us with any sound justification for doing so (by the impossibility of the contrary).
“You state “divine revelation”. I disagree, and ask how something is divinely revealed. You haven’t given any explanation.”
Would have been happy to discuss the ins and outs of natural and special revelation with you, however, the discussion seems to have stalled (read: never actually began) due to the lack of any valid, competing argument presented. Kind of hard to race when we’re both in the same car powered by the same engine (i.e. the God of the Bible).
“Negative, sound justification and logical possibility are two separate things.”
Do logical possibilities qualify as sound justifications for proving one’s position? If not, what does? Illogical possibilities?
You kidder, you!!
“You what you have posited is a logical possibility in as much as it has no contradictions: that is all.”
And since what you have posited doesn’t even meet that criteria (since it contradicts the laws of logic—namely those prohibiting vicious circularity), what has been provided to you remains the ONLY logical possibility. In case you haven’t figured it out, THAT is what the impossibility of the contrary means (which IS my argument, by the way). I am pleased with that outcome!
“well, despite my best endeavors to explain it to you, you simply dismiss it.”
Indeed, as that is what rational people should do with irrational arguments. However, if you’d like to argue that irrational arguments shouldn’t be dismissed, then the floor is yours……….
“However if the goal is to “compare”, this would mean we both list out the hows and whats of our positions, and if possible provide example to actually compare them.”
Hey, if you want to race, you need to have a car of your own with which to do so. That you don’t have one is my fault how, exactly?
I said: And, since the exceptions are rare (by definition), they in no way undermine or invalidate our ability to reasonably proceed with the expectation that nature will remain BASICALLY uniform such that we can expect the future to resemble the past in many ways. QED.”
You replied: “then by definition, rare means the laws of reality and logic aren’t laws.”
Hmmmm. I think I lost you a few posts ago. We were talking about the possible suspension or superseding of Physical laws (which are created by God and describe the way he normally upholds and sustains his physical creation). Laws of logic, on the other hand, are different, as they are not created by God, but rather are an abstract, universal, invariant prescribed standard of reasoning which reflect the way He thinks and how He expects us to do so being made in His image. Bananas and pears (because ‘apples and oranges’ was getting repetitive). ; )
“Laws of nature aren’t rarely broken, correct? They wouldn’t be a law if they were”
Again, they are only ‘laws’ in the sense that we describe them as such based on the fact that they normally (but not always) reflect the way God upholds and sustains His creation, with rare exceptions. This, again, in no way, negates our ability to reasonably expect that nature will be basically uniform such that the future resembles the past in many ways.
Besides, you have no way of knowing whether God actually temporarily interrupted these processes in those rare instances, or if He created and utilized higher physical laws to accomplish those acts (as some believe). Either way, a moot point now.
“I didn’t wishfully claim it. I stated I could with a few billion years. Its no more wishfully stated than a man who claims he could catch more fish in a lake with fish in it if he had more time to do so.”
And how would such claims be proven, since you have not observed or experienced the future? Saying that it WILL be the case because it HAS BEEN the case is question begging (especially since you don’t/can’t even know that evolution IS the case to start with). That’s about as wishful as one’s thinking can get, Roo.
“Are you sure you would like to profess that the ONLY way to be sure some one murdered some one else is to see it?”
Actually, that would be the consequences of your argument, not mine. You are the one who alleged that if something hasn’t been personally witnessed or performed (like a floating ax head, for instance), then it therefore cannot be true. I am only showing you that the foundational beliefs of your own worldview cannot pass that test themselves, therefore, they are false by that standard. If you don’t accept that, then a double standard is revealed. Like I said before, I am pleased either way!
“This Flood example also has serious questions about God’s desire to kill even the unborn, too, but thus far you haven’t demonstrated how genocide is moral. Well?”
No one is arguing that it is. Genocide is a form of (mass) murder (i.e. unlawful killing). Since God is the standard of the law, He cannot commit murder. Any killing done by Him is just and right since all lives belong to Him and are His to do with as He pleases (though we know and can rest in the fact that He has a very good, morally sufficient reason for everything He does).
You do raise a good point, though: is genocide absolutely immoral in your worldview, or are there times and places where it is moral? Let me know on that.
“the Gods word that States God can’t Lie, and the Bible itself is true because its God’s word, circular argument, forcing you to plead (specially) that because its a divinely inspired circularity, its okay.”
Actually, the argument is the Bible is the true Word of God (proven true by the impossibility of the contrary). Where is the circularity?
Another good point you’ve raised here: why are circular arguments absolutely not allowed to be used to arrive at truth in your worldview? What standard do they violate and why SHOULD it never be violated in a purely atheistic, evolutionary universe?
“These all are evidence that chit chat on paper pales in comparison to life off the page.”
Your need to continue to remind me that ‘chit chat’ on paper is of no value via….‘chit chat’ on paper(?) is duly noted.
“the means by which something is ‘divinely inspired’.”
Natural and special revelation.
“do you need a definition of “change of mind”? On day one, I state my will is unchanging, and I will always eat spicy foods.”
Please show me where God stated that He would always Flood the Earth.
I asked: “Why not? Why is it not possible that a sovereign God, in His infinite wisdom, could allow for and utilize the existence of ‘deluding influences’ for the fulfillment of a perfectly righteous, holy purpose (such as the ultimate prevailing of Truth over such influences, for instance) in such a way that His integrity remained untarnished?”
You said: “because thats a lie, Mike. God doesn’t do that, according to you.”
God most definitely doesn’t. Deluding influences do. How do you make the impossible leap from ‘deluding influences lie’ to ‘God lies’?
Besides, if you are intellectually honest, you will be forced to concede the possibility that a sovereign God could have a completely truthful and righteous purpose (like the ultimate establishment of Truth via the total abolition of all sources of deception, for example) behind everything (and anything) He allows to exist and operate within His creation (and accomplishes it in such a way that His perfectly holy character is in no way compromised).
“Learning – the acquisition of knowledge or skill through experience.”
One of the necessary preconditions of which is reasoning that is known to be valid and reliable—something your worldview simply cannot provide (just scroll up).
“You claim learning “reasoning” is possible through alternate means, I need no such alternate means, its strictly tied to the intelligent being.”
Actually, I claim that the validity of one’s reasoning cannot be ‘learned’ at all (since the claim is obviously a viciously circular and absurd one). Rather, it is revealed directly by an omniscient, omnipotent God as a necessary presupposition for ‘learning’ anything. I am satisfied with the way this thread (and, in particular, this post) serves to demonstrate that truth.
“Second, regression: from the Bible, not to it. Evidence (tangible) of course not present, I am then forced to wonder what those ancient Isrealites reasoned from, assuming your position is to hold true. They would be reasoning from an incomplete source, correct?”
Nope. They too, would have had the same rational foundation, since mankind has always had access to special revelation from the Christian God, beginning with Adam and Eve (as recorded in Genesis and elsewhere in the Old Testament).
“Hard wired exists in an evolutionary world view. Don’t borrow from it. ;)”
By whom is the hard wiring done?
“Lastly: definitions themselves. Due to your creative ways of interpreting what knowledge and truth are, I am forced to ask you to use common parlance, that being the one’s found in say… Websters.”
I defer to a much higher authority than Webster on this. Besides, you’ve already demonstrated behaviorally that you do believe that people’s knowledge claims should be ‘justified’ and ‘true’ in order to be valid (else what is the reason for any ‘proof’ you’ve offered here if not to act as ‘justification’ to demonstrate the ‘truth’ of your claims). Everything you’ve written here agrees with the fact that knowledge equates to ‘justified’ ‘true’ belief. Arguing against it only serves to expose yet another inconsistency which betrays your established pattern of behavior (i.e. a behavioral inconsistency). Again, if you are still struggling with this, give the exercise I previously recommended a try. Here it is again:
‘Tell me something that you know to be true that is not justified and/or true and I will show you that you don’t know it.’
That should just about tie up all the loose ends here. Although, I am very much aware that truth does not always equal persuasion (as it is impossible to convince someone of something that they do not wish to be convinced of), I trust you’ll give the discourse here some honest consideration and thought.
Genuinely consider the irrational implications of your worldview and then think about how those things are reconciled logically within the Christian worldview. As always, I am here to help you think through this if you need me. I will continue to keep you in my prayers. Take care!
LikeLike
I said: “However, since the ‘lesson’ (which in this case is the reliability of your reasoning) IS the thing you claim to have ‘learned’ (via your reasoning), all you’re doing is re-stating the argument that you ‘learned’ (via your reasoning) that your reasoning is reliable.”
You said: yes.
Thank you again for your honesty here! Again, this admission once again reveals that the basis for which you claim to arrive at knowledge in your worldview is, indeed, a viciously circular one. That is, you begin with blind faith in the validity of your reasoning, and end with blind faith in the validity of your reasoning.
—- Now, quid pro quo time: is a “viciously circular” argument an illogical one? That being, does it have any degree of contradiction? If no, then it must be, as you have set the bar, “a logical possibility”. Ultimately, though, its conclusion isn’t solely reached by me, and it is indeed testable or verifiable. For me to cart blanche state as such would be informal at best, but with evidence and outside examination, such circularity is really just reporting reality. It seems as though the problem you have with my assertion is that if I specifically declare such, it becomes a circular argument. Well, what if I am not the only one that concurs with the assessment? At what point do I now just become some one reporting circumstance without bias? I have been issued driver’s licenses, permits, and various other ranks of achievement that indicate my reasoning is valid. Were such a statement true from the outset, such testing for those ranks would not be needed, but since such has been demonstrated, it seems as though again the circularity is not of my creation.
“That is the definition of learning, something we both agree an intelligent creature can do.”
And since ‘learning’ and ‘intelligence’ both assume valid reasoning, neither is possible in your worldview. When you appeal to these concepts, and act as if they are possible, you are simply being inconsistent with what you profess to believe and, in effect, abandoning said worldview. —- By your invention, Mike. You have no foundation for how this was concluded. If valid reasoning is assumed, world view is irrelevant, it’s a condition of the equation.
“Now that we have just rationally and logically concluded the results of “learning”,”
Actually, concluding the validity of your reasoning via the results of that same reasoning is the very opposite of ‘logical’ behavior. — see above regarding how the “circularity” is formed and broken.
. After all, you are merely stating that you believe it is true that your reasoning is valid because you reasoned that it is true that your reasoning is valid. Again, I am perfectly fine with your desire to continue positing that here. In fact, thank you! — Sure. I am sure it gives you the same degree of warm fuzzies as me seeing you type “God did it…” over and over again. Between the two of us, one has indexical demonstrated evidence, one has talk.
“and the Bible says that God is the always truthful, etc, etc, As I stated previously, you are built on a circularity of men’s creation.”
I won’t worry too much about that allegation, though, given what you have just admitted above (and elsewhere) regarding the reliability of the reasoning used to form it. — I would dodge that, were I you, too.
“stop talking and do it, mostly. Again, talk and stuff is nice, but… no great works every came from talking. Nothing was every proved by talking.”
Including that? Gotcha’! : D — Indeed. This is hardly a “great work”, and because I am asking you pointed questions, with no answer, nothing is proven. Now, again, if you would like me to cite my assertions, simply give the nod.
“Which is why I have been asking to provide demonstration of my assertion, and you have declined.”
Just wanted to find out what the basis is for the validity of everything you claim to be true in the first place. Almost wish I hadn’t asked now, for your sake. But, I’m glad I did, as the truth only hurts when it should. —- So, is that declining my offering evidence of my assertion, or is that you dodging?
I said: “This assumes that God could not (or did not) reveal the validity of our senses and reasoning via direct revelation, completely APART from them, such that it can be known for certain to be true. We’ve already seen the absurdity that the contrary position leads to here (not to mention that you have already conceded that God could reveal things this way). Therefore, there is no basis for what you are assuming here, apart from blind faith.”
You responded: “could but HOW. By what method?”
Um, direct revelation is the method, the possibility of which you just conceded (again).
—Explain this process. If you are asking by what process one determines reasoning is valid, quid pro quo. I offered mine, you didn’t like it. No problem, your turn. Explain this process of direct revelation.
“I can offer evidence to my assertion, are you interested in reading it? Secondly, its not a false analogy. Both instinctive/reflexive reaction make use of stimuli (evidence) for a proper (reasonable) reaction to occur. Just because its not a higher brain function involving conscious thought doesn’t mean a reasoning assessment isn’t being done. I just need to know if you are going to decline wading through execution and documentation I can produce, or if you would rather stick with your assertion, which seems to be made from ignorance.”
“Seems to”, based on what? Reasoning that you trust on blind faith alone? What is that to me?
— What it is to you is irrelevant, what it seems to be, however, is ignorance. Again, would you like me to cite sources that demonstrate my assertion to be true?
I said: “Um, it is if what you’re trying to prove is a claim regarding ‘ALL TRUTH’.”
You said: “and I’m not.”
Oh? Guess you forget about this little gem from 8/12/15 (8:24 am):
I asked: Must ALL TRUTHS (emphasis mine) be substantiated via empirical means in order to be valid?
You replied: Yes.
See what reasoning validated by reasoning leads to, Roo? ; ) — Your inability to follow a conversation? Or your desire to yet again misrepresent what I am stating? All truths must be substantiated via empirical means to be valid. That doesn’t mean I am trying to prove everything at once. The next truth claim I assert we can get to, and I will again ask if you would like evidence to it, and you will again dodge. In the mean time, ALL truth is not necessary to prove ONE truth, I feel my ignored examples demonstrate that, which is probably why you cut them.
“I ask you how logic and reasoning develops.”
“You state “divine revelation”. I disagree, and ask how something is divinely revealed. You haven’t given any explanation.”
Would have been happy to discuss the ins and outs of natural and special revelation with you, however, the discussion seems to have stalled (read: never actually began) due to the lack of any valid, competing argument presented. Kind of hard to race when we’re both in the same car powered by the same engine (i.e. the God of the Bible). — I couldn’t tell you if it stalled or not, you haven’t given anything as a basis for comparison. When asked, you simply restate “divine revelation” as though you understand the process, or that is answering the question.
“Negative, sound justification and logical possibility are two separate things.”
Do logical possibilities qualify as sound justifications for proving one’s position? If not, what does? Illogical possibilities?
You kidder, you!!— Oh, you poor myopic soul! Logical possibility simply means there are no contradictions. A circular argument is a “logical possibility”, it has no contradictions. Is it logically possible for your car to spontaneously combust? The answer is: yes. There is an ignition source, fuel, there is oxygen, etc. Is there sound justification for believing your car will spontaneously combust? Of course not. The evidence for such occurring is too small, despite the fact it is indeed a possibility. Words mean things, Mike. Logical possibility and evidence to a conclusion provide for sound justification.
“You what you have posited is a logical possibility in as much as it has no contradictions: that is all.”
And since what you have posited doesn’t even meet that criteria (since it contradicts the laws of logic—namely those prohibiting vicious circularity), what has been provided to you remains the ONLY logical possibility. In case you haven’t figured it out, THAT is what the impossibility of the contrary means (which IS my argument, by the way). I am pleased -with that outcome! — words mean things, and that whole paragraph meant nothing. I would suggest you read up on what the “laws of logic” are regarding what a fallacious statement is, and why it becomes fallacious. Were some one else to come along and declare my logic and reasoning valid, does that end this argument? 😉 Your benchmark indicates “yes”, but… I detect you will (take note!) move the goal post to widen the definition of what the circularity will encompass.
“well, despite my best endeavors to explain it to you, you simply dismiss it.”
Indeed, as that is what rational people should do with irrational arguments. However, if you’d like to argue that irrational arguments shouldn’t be dismissed, then the floor is yours………. —- Oh, no thanks, you can’t even get what constitutes “fallacy” correct, why should I think you would understand a coherent argument when you see it?
“However if the goal is to “compare”, this would mean we both list out the hows and whats of our positions, and if possible provide example to actually compare them.”
Hey, if you want to race, you need to have a car of your own with which to do so. That you don’t have one is my fault how, exactly?— Dodge. My car is irrelevant to yours. More to the point, the fact that you don’t like my car is irrelevant to yours. Please, explain this “divine revelation”.
I said: And, since the exceptions are rare (by definition), they in no way undermine or invalidate our ability to reasonably proceed with the expectation that nature will remain BASICALLY uniform such that we can expect the future to resemble the past in many ways. QED.”
You replied: “then by definition, rare means the laws of reality and logic aren’t laws.”
Hmmmm. I think I lost you a few posts ago. We were talking about the possible suspension or superseding of Physical laws (which are created by God and describe the way he normally upholds and sustains his physical creation). Laws of logic, on the other hand, are different, as they are not created by God, but rather are an abstract, universal, invariant prescribed standard of reasoning which reflect the way He thinks and how He expects us to do so being made in His image. Bananas and pears (because ‘apples and oranges’ was getting repetitive). ; ) — wow, so many jinxes in the armor, its hard to count… Logic can be used to describe reality. If reality is suspended, that means logic wouldn’t apply. This would also mean that God’s way of thinking, by your explanation, wouldn’t be “universal” or “invariant” or “a standard”. He has (and used) the ability to suspend reality at will, causing the logical conclusions of such a reality that can be drawn to be irrational circumstance. If logic was NOT created by God, and logic cannot be learned, God had it divinely revealed to Him by….? And lastly, Physical laws that are suspended “rarely” and that are “basically uniform” by definition aren’t physical laws. Words mean things, Mike.
“Laws of nature aren’t rarely broken, correct? They wouldn’t be a law if they were”
Again, they are only ‘laws’ in the sense that we describe them as such based on the fact that they normally (but not always) reflect the way God upholds and sustains His creation, with rare exceptions. This, again, in no way, negates our ability to reasonably expect that nature will be basically uniform such that the future resembles the past in many ways. — “in no way”?! “Reasonably expect”??! Mike, words mean things. If God suspends reality, on any occasion, then we really have no reason at all to think reality will remain uniform. Reality is now risk assessment, a gamble. Sorry, Mike, but you have done yourself more harm than good in admitting this of your world view.
“I didn’t wishfully claim it. I stated I could with a few billion years. Its no more wishfully stated than a man who claims he could catch more fish in a lake with fish in it if he had more time to do so.”
And how would such claims be proven, since you have not observed or experienced the future? Saying that it WILL be the case because it HAS BEEN the case is question begging (especially since you don’t/can’t even know that evolution IS the case to start with). That’s about as wishful as one’s thinking can get, Roo. — I think you missed my point. I see what you stated here, but its not what I was auguring for. I don’t wish to be able to make a man. That variety of time and power is not something that interests me. If you were wanting to put something deeper to that context, so be it, but its not what I was responding too.
“Are you sure you would like to profess that the ONLY way to be sure some one murdered some one else is to see it?”
Actually, that would be the consequences of your argument, not mine. You are the one who alleged that if something hasn’t been personally witnessed or performed (like a floating ax head, for instance), then it therefore cannot be true. —- only if you choose to ignore obvious implications. Its an outlandish claim from the onset, which is why it deserves scrutiny. I have attempted to float various metals on water. Not for a miracle, but as part of experiment. It was pretty fun to float aluminum, and if lucky, keep the surface tension of water intact enough to hold up an iron filing. AN iron filing. Subject at hand, though, if the assertion is that an ax head can float, and is a rational prospect, it should be repeatable. Empirically demonstrated. Your claim is that its rational, and real, because it was written in this book, this book that never lies because the guy that attributed to have written it never lies, and it says that in the book, so it must be true. That is a circularity, btw. Point at hand is that something (as previously stated) is proven true by demonstration. If floating an ax head is a rational prospect, float one, Mike.
“This Flood example also has serious questions about God’s desire to kill even the unborn, too, but thus far you haven’t demonstrated how genocide is moral. Well?”
No one is arguing that it is. Genocide is a form of (mass) murder (i.e. unlawful killing). Since God is the standard of the law, He cannot commit murder. Any killing done by Him is just and right since all lives belong to Him and are His to do with as He pleases (though we know and can rest in the fact that He has a very good, morally sufficient reason for everything He does). — Special pleading. Its okay if God does it, because he wrote a book that says he is good all the time, and athe book verifies that he is good all the time, because he said the book is trustworthy.
You do raise a good point, though: is genocide absolutely immoral in your worldview, or are there times and places where it is moral? Let me know on that.— as a means of self defense.
“the Gods word that States God can’t Lie, and the Bible itself is true because its God’s word, circular argument, forcing you to plead (specially) that because its a divinely inspired circularity, its okay.”
Actually, the argument is the Bible is the true Word of God (proven true by the impossibility of the contrary). Where is the circularity?— The Bible claims the Bible to be true, because it’s the True Word of God. Special pleading now indicates you get to state whatever God does must be true. (Remember, no matter what He does, He is moral as He does it) According to the Bible.
Another good point you’ve raised here: why are circular arguments absolutely not allowed to be used to arrive at truth in your worldview? What standard do they violate and why SHOULD it never be violated in a purely atheistic, evolutionary universe? — this was already answered, they can be used to form a basis of belief that is both not falsifiable, and can be used to rationalize nearly anything, though “atheistic evolutionary” is irrelevant to that.
“These all are evidence that chit chat on paper pales in comparison to life off the page.”
Your need to continue to remind me that ‘chit chat’ on paper is of no value via….‘chit chat’ on paper(?) is duly noted. — Good. Float me an ax head.
“the means by which something is ‘divinely inspired’.”
Natural and special revelation. – this does nothing to answer the question. Its just 2 more buzz words.
“do you need a definition of “change of mind”? On day one, I state my will is unchanging, and I will always eat spicy foods.”
Please show me where God stated that He would always Flood the Earth. — I don’t have to, it was in His purview before He did it. It is no longer after he did it. If it would make you feel better, the subject in question could have just as easily stated “I have no problem with spicy food, and will have them on my plate”. I feel as though your desire for semantics has over ridden desire to converse.
I asked: “Why not? Why is it not possible that a sovereign God, in His infinite wisdom, could allow for and utilize the existence of ‘deluding influences’ for the fulfillment of a perfectly righteous, holy purpose (such as the ultimate prevailing of Truth over such influences, for instance) in such a way that His integrity remained untarnished?”
You said: “because thats a lie, Mike. God doesn’t do that, according to you.”
God most definitely doesn’t. Deluding influences do. How do you make the impossible leap from ‘deluding influences lie’ to ‘God lies’? — Who sent the deluding influence? You are arguing that a marksmen didn’t score the bull’s eye, the bullet did.
Besides, if you are intellectually honest, you will be forced to concede the possibility that a sovereign God could have a completely truthful and righteous purpose (like the ultimate establishment of Truth via the total abolition of all sources of deception, for example) behind everything (and anything) He allows to exist and operate within His creation (and accomplishes it in such a way that His perfectly holy character is in no way compromised). — Sure, but that would also mean He would need to have the quality of “rational” or “reasonable”, something that by your standard must have been revealed to Him for him to behave in such a fashion.
“Learning – the acquisition of knowledge or skill through experience.”
One of the necessary preconditions of which is reasoning that is known to be valid and reliable—something your worldview simply cannot provide (just scroll up). — fallacy of repetition.
“You claim learning “reasoning” is possible through alternate means, I need no such alternate means, its strictly tied to the intelligent being.”
Actually, I claim that the validity of one’s reasoning cannot be ‘learned’ at all (since the claim is obviously a viciously circular and absurd one). — then your argument is a semantical one. If the ‘validity’ is all you are interested in, I simply (and correctly) state the learning or concluding if your reasoning is valid is not a condition required for it to work.
Rather, it is revealed directly by an omniscient, omnipotent God as a necessary presupposition for ‘learning’ anything. I am satisfied with the way this thread (and, in particular, this post) serves to demonstrate that truth. — so you have your VALIDATION of your reasoning working from God? Or your reasoning itself? You just switched words, and as you know, words mean something, Mike.
““Hard wired exists in an evolutionary world view. Don’t borrow from it. ;)”
By whom is the hard wiring done? — evolutionary trait. (Don’t ask for evidence unless you are willing to read it).
“Lastly: definitions themselves. Due to your creative ways of interpreting what knowledge and truth are, I am forced to ask you to use common parlance, that being the one’s found in say… Websters.”
I defer to a much higher authority than Webster on this. — for definitions of words? Is this why words don’t mean things to you, Mike? Oh, wait, let me guess! Your vocabulary is “basically” uniform, and “rarely” misunderstood, right? 😉
Besides, you’ve already demonstrated behaviorally that you do believe that people’s knowledge claims should be ‘justified’ and ‘true’ in order to be valid (else what is the reason for any ‘proof’ you’ve offered here if not to act as ‘justification’ to demonstrate the ‘truth’ of your claims). Everything you’ve written here agrees with the fact that knowledge equates to ‘justified’ ‘true’ belief. Arguing against it only serves to expose yet another inconsistency which betrays your established pattern of behavior (i.e. a behavioral inconsistency). Again, if you are still struggling with this, give the exercise I previously recommended a try. —- I am inconsistently inconsistent? Mike, what have I told you about words? This grouping resembles a paragraph, but I am not sure its conveying what you think you need it to convey.
LikeLike
I said: “However, since the ‘lesson’ (which in this case is the reliability of your reasoning) IS the thing you claim to have ‘learned’ (via your reasoning), all you’re doing is re-stating the argument that you ‘learned’ (via your reasoning) that your reasoning is reliable.”
You said: “yes.”
I said: “Thank you again for your honesty here! Again, this admission once again reveals that the basis for which you claim to arrive at knowledge in your worldview is, indeed, a viciously circular one. That is, you begin with blind faith in the validity of your reasoning, and end with blind faith in the validity of your reasoning.”
Your response: “Now, quid pro quo time: is a “viciously circular” argument an illogical one?
Yes, and Absolutely!
“That being, does it have any degree of contradiction? If no, then it must be, as you have set the bar, “a logical possibility”.”
Why MUST that logically be the case? What objective, binding standard, necessitates this in a purely subjective worldview? How do you account for that standard?
Furthermore, while all arguments contain a degree of circularity, not all arguments are valid logical proofs. Viciously circular arguments are always illogical due to their arbitrary nature and the fact that they are based upon mere blind faith. As such, they do not establish knowledge, they destroy it.
I do give you some points for finally acknowledging the vicious circularity of your argument, though. Success!
“Ultimately, though, its conclusion isn’t solely reached by me, and it is indeed testable or verifiable.”
And what would you ultimately rely upon to verify whether or not you’ve accurately perceived the results of any experiment done to test the reliability of your reasoning? That same unverified reasoning perhaps? As such, you destroy the possibility of ever knowing that your reasoning is reliable. There’s that arbitrariness and blind faith I was referring to before.
“For me to cart blanche state as such would be informal at best, but with evidence and outside examination, such circularity is really just reporting reality.”
Unless, of course, you have zero basis for assuming that the mental picture produced by your reasoning in any way corresponds to the real world (which you don’t). That being the case, you would be forced to admit that all of your perceptions of the world could be entirely fictitious. See the arbitrariness and blind faith that a worldview without God is ultimately reduced to, Roo? Yikes!
“Well, what if I am not the only one that concurs with the assessment?”
How would you ever be able to know for certain that was the case if you don’t know that your reasoning (and its resulting perceptions of the world) is valid in the first place? Besides, simply shifting an unjustified, irrational position held by one person to multiple people does not a truth make (if anything, it only constitutes a fallacious faulty appeal). Sorry.
However, if you would like to argue that mere agreement with your position makes it true, then I will remind you, that since multitudes agree that God exists and that the Bible is His Word, then by that same standard, those things are also necessarily true as well, and you are also refuted. Either way, I am fine with the outcome!
“see above regarding how the “circularity” is formed and broken.”
Once again I appreciate the (loooong overdue) admission of circularity with regards to your position, however, the vicious type you are engaging in is not (and cannot be) broken due to its purely arbitrary and baseless nature (hence its absolute absurdity). Sad really.
You said: “Nothing was every proved by talking.”
I asked: Including that? Gotcha’! : D
You conceded: Indeed.
Great! Consider that claim (as well as all the others you’ve argued for here) dismissed then. What a colossal waste of time this would have been if not for the irrationality of atheism that has been recorded and remains on display here. I can rest in that.
“This is hardly a “great work”,”
Viciously circular arguments founded upon blind faith never are. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
“Which is why I have been asking to provide demonstration of my assertion, and you have declined.”
Already seen all the ‘demonstration’ I need to see of what your position ultimately amounts to. And, it bears repeating that it ain’t pretty! In fact, EEEEEEEK!
“So, is that declining my offering evidence of my assertion, or is that you dodging?”
Evidence is for those positions that are logically defensible and justifiable, which excludes yours. After, all, no amount of evidence can make a fallacious (and, therefore, false) argument not fallacious (and, therefore, not false). Again, sorry.
I said: “Um, direct revelation is the method, the possibility of which you just conceded (again).”
You said: “Explain this process.”
Maybe I’ll consider doing a blog post on that topic sometime soon. That would be a more appropriate format for the monologue you seem to be seeking, since you have no valid, competing position of your own to present by which to warrant a true dialogue here.
Or, if you prefer, we have Bible studies at my church where we delve into things like this. I’ll save you a seat if you’d like.
“All truths must be substantiated via empirical means to be valid. That doesnt mean I am trying to prove everything at once.”
Nah, just an assertion about ALL TRUTHS that you could never possibly justify or prove in your worldview. Perhaps now you can better see why it is that you were forced to concede that some knowledge can (and is) most definitely be gained via other means (like being Divinely revealed directly by God such that we can be certain of its truth).
“You haven’t given any explanation.”
Sure I have—check the blog articles. Again, a monologue of that type is more your speed at this point (since your lack of a rational, competing position precludes the possibility of an actual dialogue).
I responded: “Do logical possibilities qualify as sound justifications for proving one’s position? If not, what does? Illogical possibilities? You kidder, you!!”
You then replied: “Oh, you poor myopic soul! Logical possibility simply means there are no contradictions.”
So logical possibilities do constitute sound justifications for proving things true, though, as opposed to…say… illogical possibilities—-right? I thought so.
“A circular argument is a “logical possibility”, it has no contradictions.”
Not if it is a purely arbitrary, vicious circle (which is absolutely illogical). That fact notwithstanding, the contradiction in your position is the belief that your unjustified reasoning somehow also qualifies as a means of justification for your reasoning (or in simpler terms, it is the contradiction that an unknown proposition (accepted on blind faith) can be the basis for objective knowledge/truth). QED.
I said: “However, if you’d like to argue that irrational arguments shouldn’t be dismissed, then the floor is yours……….”
You said: “Oh, no thanks, you can’t even get what constitutes “fallacy” correct, why should I think you would understand a coherent argument when you see it?”
I knew you were getting desperate, Roo, but I must confess that I really did not expect that you would actually go the route of trying to argue the validity of viciously circular arguments as logical proofs. I never cease to be amazed at how far some will go to continue in their willful supression of the Truth. Shameful, really.
I said: “Hmmmm. I think I lost you a few posts ago. We were talking about the possible suspension or superseding of Physical laws (which are created by God and describe the way he normally upholds and sustains his physical creation). Laws of logic, on the other hand, are different, as they are not created by God, but rather are an abstract, universal, invariant prescribed standard of reasoning which reflect the way He thinks and how He expects us to do so being made in His image. Bananas and pears (because ‘apples and oranges’ was getting repetitive). ; )
You replied: “wow, so many jinxes in the armor, its hard to count… Logic can be used to describe reality. If reality is suspended, that means logic wouldn’t apply.”
Again, not even close. Logic is not based upon the natural world in any way, but transcends it as a direct reflection of the unchanging, immaterial, sovereign character and nature of God. A rare, isolated suspension or superseding of a physical law (which may or may not have even been the means by which God accomplished certain miracles) would in no way negate the laws of logic whatsoever. Your assertion is simply erroneous and really just amounts to a misappropriated slippery slope fallacy.
Technically, it is impossible to prove that any miracle violates the laws of nature in the first place, since any given miracle could just simply be a manifestation of an undiscovered principle of physics or a manifestation of known principles acting in ways we do not presently understand. Even so, though, God is under no obligation to uphold the universe in a completely rigid uniform way. So long as any exceptions are not so severe as to break God’s promise to provide some degree of uniformity in the world (such that mankind can subdue it and have dominion over it), our reasonable expectation of basic uniformity is not undermined in any way. I trust this is clear now.
“If logic was NOT created by God, and logic cannot be learned, God had it divinely revealed to Him by….?”
Um, no one, since logic is an aspect of His abstract, invariant, absolute nature and, therefore, part of who He is.
“Reality is now risk assessment, a gamble. Sorry, Mike, but you have done yourself more harm than good in admitting this of your world view.”
I trust you see your error now regarding this erroneous allegation against me. However, since you brought it up, ‘a gamble’ would be the appropriate term to describe the reality of an atheistic worldview which advocates a purely evolutionary universe. After all, what reason would there be in such a universe to expect the universe to behave in a law-like fashion at all, since there is no reason to expect that the universe will continue to behave in the future as it has in the past (apart from blind faith, since no one has observed the future).
Ironically, in a secular worldview, each time you are able to make a successful prediction about the future (the position of the planets and so on), it is a sort of ‘miracle’ because the secular worldview has zero logical reason whatsoever for the uniformity of nature and thus the success of science. Perhaps you should give this some serious thought.
You said: “I didn’t wishfully claim it. I stated I could with a few billion years. Its no more wishfully stated than a man who claims he could catch more fish in a lake with fish in it if he had more time to do so.”
I asked: “And how would such claims be proven, since you have not observed or experienced the future? Saying that it WILL be the case because it HAS BEEN the case is question begging (especially since you don’t/can’t even know that evolution IS the case to start with). That’s about as wishful as one’s thinking can get, Roo.”
You responded: “I think you missed my point. I see what you stated here, but its not what I was auguring for. I don’t wish to be able to make a man. That variety of time and power is not something that interests me. If you were wanting to put something deeper to that context, so be it, but its not what I was responding too.”
So no demonstration of molecules to man evolution for me, to substantiate your belief that it is possible, eh? Suit yourself.
That being the case, I will again remind you that, by your own arbitrary standard, that type of evolution, therefore, did not (and cannot) occur. Drats, there goes my hopes of a really cool souvenir from this discussion! Oh well, I guess the arguments you’ve provided here, which expose the ultimate absurdity of atheism, will just have to do. I can live with that! ; )
“Subject at hand, though, if the assertion is that an ax head can float, and is a rational prospect, it should be repeatable. Empirically demonstrated.”
Only if you believe that ALL KNOWLEDGE/ TRUTH must be gained via empirical means. Something that you have not (and cannot) prove to be true. In fact, you have succeeded in refuting yourself by demonstrating the very opposite.
“Your claim is that its rational, and real, because it was written in this book, this book that never lies because the guy that attributed to have written it never lies, and it says that in the book, so it must be true.”
Actually, that sounds a whole lot more like the atheism-of-the-gaps (i.e. ‘science books say it/ evolution did it, so it must be true’) arguments that have become your forte’ here. I’ll leave that to the intellectually honest readers to decide, though.
I said: “You do raise a good point, though: is genocide absolutely immoral in your worldview, or are there times and places where it is moral? Let me know on that.”
You replied: “as a means of self defense.”
Self-defense would not constitute ‘murder’. Let me ask it this way: when is (mass) murder absolutely forbidden in your worldview–or is it? Who gets to decide?
I asked (regarding my position): “Where is the circularity?”
You said: “The Bible claims the Bible to be true, because it’s the True Word of God.”
Um, again no. The Bible claims that it is the True Word of God (by the impossibility of the contrary). Where is the vicious circularity (especially since this argument establishes the objective basis of all knowledge, reasoning, and human experience instead of destroying it). The difference between this and what you are arguing is night and day (or plums and cherries, if you prefer).
I asked: “Another good point you’ve raised here: why are circular arguments absolutely not allowed to be used to arrive at truth in your worldview? What standard do they violate and why SHOULD it never be violated in a purely atheistic, evolutionary universe?”
You said: “this was already answered, they can be used to form a basis of belief that is both not falsifiable, and can be used to rationalize nearly anything, though”
Why is that absolutely not allowed as a valid form of argumentation in your worldview? What standard absolutely forbids it and why should anyone else adhere to that standard if they don’t want to? This should be good.
You argued: “do you need a definition of “change of mind”? On day one, I state my will is unchanging, and I will always eat spicy foods.”
I replied: “Please show me where God stated that He would always Flood the Earth.”
You then said: “I don’t have to,”
Correct, you don’t have to support your argument(s), however, it looks really silly when you don’t. Not that I mind in the slightest, though!! ; )
“it was in His purview before He did it. It is no longer after he did it.”
And what exactly would prevent an unchanging, sovereign God from interacting with His creation in various predetermined ways to accomplish His purposes? YOUR arbitrary say so? Riiiiiiight.
I said: “God most definitely doesn’t. Deluding influences do. How do you make the impossible leap from‘deluding influences lie’to ‘God lies’?”
You said: “Who sent the deluding influence? You are arguing that a marksmen didn’t score the bull’s eye, the bullet did.”
Nope, I’m arguing that the marksman is NOT a bullet. It’s up to you to prove that He is. Please support your argument with something other than false analogies, or retract it.
Again, you need to prove that a deluding influence could not exist and function within the economy of God’s creation in such a way that allowed God’s perfectly holy character to remain completely untarnished (especially since ALL agents and agencies within God’s creation are, in fact, working (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to propagate and establish absolute truth via the ongoing undermining and subsequent destruction of all deceptive forces, to achieve God’s righteous purpose of bringing about an ultimate ‘truth filled’ reality, free from the presence of any and all such influences. Of course, the Architect of such a reality (where truth is all there is) would be nothing less than the supreme embodiment of One who is TRUTHFUL. You really have no basis for arguing against this, since:
1) You have no basis for the validity of the reasoning you’re attempting to use here, in the first place, and therefore can’t know anything.
2) You have no absolute standard of Truth of your own by which to call anything absolutely false in your worldview.
3) Given those two things, you are forced to concede that what I have put forth is, indeed, a possibility, since you cannot know for certain that anything is absolutely false or impossible in your worldview. If the claim is at least possible, you have no argument (not that you ever did).
“If the ‘validity’ (of reasoning) is all you are interested in, I simply (and correctly) state the learning or concluding if your reasoning is valid is not a condition required for it to work.”
And you formed that unjustified, arbitrary conclusion with reasoning that you trust solely on blind faith (as has been demonstrated to death over the course of this thread). Yes, I’ve heard. Somehow it never gets old, though!!
You said:“Hard wired exists in an evolutionary world view. Don’t borrow from it. ;)”
I asked: “By whom is the hard wiring done?”
You then replied: “evolutionary trait. (Don’t ask for evidence unless you are willing to read it).”
Well, I am super busy, however, I will definitely make time to read the evidence which demonstrates that evolution is, in fact, a ‘Whom’. Can’t wait!
There. I believe that just about covers it. As I’ve stated, I am super busy right now, and just do not have the time to waste in continuing to respond to outlandish and unjustified (viciously circular) knowledge claims that you have demonstrated having no basis for believing to be true in the first place, due to your professed worldview (especially those which claim that viciously circular logical fallacies are somehow not logical fallacies—I’m still blown away by the sheer irrational audacity of that one!).
Since this is indeed what your ‘argumentation’ has now been reduced to, then I am content to leave the ‘discussion’ here (objective record and all) with the recommendation of repentance on your part for the willful denial of your Creator, as you are without excuse.
Feel free to check back for those potential forthcoming blog posts I alluded to, as they should provide you with sufficient examples of the monologues you seem to be desiring here. As always, thanks again for stopping by and contributing to the cause. You are welcome here anytime!!
Mike
LikeLike
I said: “However, since the ‘lesson’ (which in this case is the reliability of your reasoning) IS the thing you claim to have ‘learned’ (via your reasoning), all you’re doing is re-stating the argument that you ‘learned’ (via your reasoning) that your reasoning is reliable.”
You said: “yes.”
I said: “Thank you again for your honesty here! Again, this admission once again reveals that the basis for which you claim to arrive at knowledge in your worldview is, indeed, a viciously circular one. That is, you begin with blind faith in the validity of your reasoning, and end with blind faith in the validity of your reasoning.”
Your response: “Now, quid pro quo time: is a “viciously circular” argument an illogical one?
Yes, and Absolutely!
—- And, like I said, you simply don’t understand the implements you claim to hold. A circular argument by its inception is not an illogical prospect, as there are no contradictions. Here, from Wiki: “The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade”.
“That being, does it have any degree of contradiction? If no, then it must be, as you have set the bar, “a logical possibility”.”
Why MUST that logically be the case? What objective, binding standard, necessitates this in a purely subjective worldview? How do you account for that standard?
—- if the goal is to persuade via logical conclusion, it would follow that the premises are independent of the conclusion, as it’s the conclusion that is derived. Might I remind you, its your world view that states reality is “basically” uniform and only “rarely” irrational. Are you confident the world view you think you are criticizing is “subjective”? 😉
Furthermore, while all arguments contain a degree of circularity, not all arguments are valid logical proofs. Viciously circular arguments are always illogical due to their arbitrary nature and the fact that they are based upon mere blind faith. As such, they do not establish knowledge, they destroy it.
—- Given the evidence presented, Mike, I don’t feel bad about stating flatly: you don’t know what you are talking about. A circular argument is generally fallacious, not illogical.
I do give you some points for finally acknowledging the vicious circularity of your argument, though. Success!
— and I give you credit for acknowledging the circularity of yours. Success! (after all, “all arguments contain a certain degree of circularity”).
“Ultimately, though, its conclusion isn’t solely reached by me, and it is indeed testable or verifiable.”
And what would you ultimately rely upon to verify whether or not you’ve accurately perceived the results of any experiment done to test the reliability of your reasoning? That same unverified reasoning perhaps? As such, you destroy the possibility of ever knowing that your reasoning is reliable. There’s that arbitrariness and blind faith I was referring to before.
—- so by what circumstance are you sure that you had something divinely revealed to you? This is another double standard. According to what I can piece together of your non explanation, you are revealed the Bible through “means”. You then assume immediately that such a circumstance is real, and that your senses were reliable from the onset to have received such a revelation. You are making use of the same basal assumption, but claiming a special pleading behind it that yours is correct. Please, take note, again from Wiki: “Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]The lack of criticism may be … an application of a double standard.” Sound familiar? It should, it has been your argument this whole “conversation”.
“For me to cart blanche state as such would be informal at best, but with evidence and outside examination, such circularity is really just reporting reality.”
Unless, of course, you have zero basis for assuming that the mental picture produced by your reasoning in any way corresponds to the real world (which you don’t). That being the case, you would be forced to admit that all of your perceptions of the world could be entirely fictitious. See the arbitrariness and blind faith that a worldview without God is ultimately reduced to, Roo? Yikes!
—see previous.
“Well, what if I am not the only one that concurs with the assessment?”
How would you ever be able to know for certain that was the case if you don’t know that your reasoning (and its resulting perceptions of the world) is valid in the first place? Besides, simply shifting an unjustified, irrational position held by one person to multiple people does not a truth make (if anything, it only constitutes a fallacious faulty appeal). Sorry.
— credit where due, correct, an ad populam fallacy, another informal one. Hope for you yet.
I said: “Um, direct revelation is the method, the possibility of which you just conceded (again).”
You said: “Explain this process.”
Maybe I’ll consider doing a blog post on that topic sometime soon. That would be a more appropriate format for the monologue you seem to be seeking, since you have no valid, competing position of your own to present by which to warrant a true dialogue here.
—My turn to hold my breath, right? 😉
I responded: “Do logical possibilities qualify as sound justifications for proving one’s position? If not, what does? Illogical possibilities? You kidder, you!!”
You then replied: “Oh, you poor myopic soul! Logical possibility simply means there are no contradictions.”
So logical possibilities do constitute sound justifications for proving things true, though, as opposed to…say… illogical possibilities—-right? I thought so.
—- is that honestly what you took away from the statement? Fallacious arguments are logical possibilities. Circular arguments are logical possibilities. They are not however “sound”.
“A circular argument is a “logical possibility”, it has no contradictions.”
Not if it is a purely arbitrary, vicious circle (which is absolutely illogical).
—Like I stated. Mike, you don’t know what you are talking about. Please , spot the illogical, IE contradictory nature of a circular argument.
I said: “However, if you’d like to argue that irrational arguments shouldn’t be dismissed, then the floor is yours……….”
You said: “Oh, no thanks, you can’t even get what constitutes “fallacy” correct, why should I think you would understand a coherent argument when you see it?”
I knew you were getting desperate, Roo, but I must confess that I really did not expect that you would actually go the route of trying to argue the validity of viciously circular arguments as logical proofs. I never cease to be amazed at how far some will go to continue in their willful supression of the Truth. Shameful, really.
—Lets call it “obvious revelation” that my accompanying conversation mate is not living up to the standards they have set for themselves. The simple facts are you have incorrectly named fallacies, you have confused what is an illogical prospect with a fallacious one, and you are claiming all arguments have a degree of circularity to them. Beyond your arbitrary assignment, what constitutes a “viciously” circular argument, and therefore illogical (according to you), as opposed to a politely circular argument, which IS logical and not fallacious?
I said: “Hmmmm. I think I lost you a few posts ago. We were talking about the possible suspension or superseding of Physical laws (which are created by God and describe the way he normally upholds and sustains his physical creation). Laws of logic, on the other hand, are different, as they are not created by God, but rather are an abstract, universal, invariant prescribed standard of reasoning which reflect the way He thinks and how He expects us to do so being made in His image. Bananas and pears (because ‘apples and oranges’ was getting repetitive). ; )
You replied: “wow, so many jinxes in the armor, its hard to count… Logic can be used to describe reality. If reality is suspended, that means logic wouldn’t apply.”
Again, not even close. Logic is not based upon the natural world in any way, but transcends it as a direct reflection of the unchanging, immaterial, sovereign character and nature of God.
—- please conclude the thought, Mike. If logic can be used to describe reality, and the laws of reality can be suspended, that means Logic can be suspended. This would mean your suggestion is contradictory: logic reflects the unchanging nature of God. Logic can be used to describe reality. God can suspend reality. Logic can be suspended. God’s nature can there for be suspended. That is a change.
A rare, isolated suspension or superseding of a physical law (which may or may not have even been the means by which God accomplished certain miracles) would in no way negate the laws of logic whatsoever. Your assertion is simply erroneous and really just amounts to a misappropriated slippery slope fallacy.
—- If logic describes reality, and reality becomes suspended, logic must too get suspended. Your denial is unfounded, and your concession (that being your REAL concession, not an implied one, or inadvertent one) gives rise to a reality in which no specific instance can be guaranteed to be real or rational. That is not a slippery slope, it’s a statement of fact.
Technically, it is impossible to prove that any miracle violates the laws of nature in the first place, since any given miracle could just simply be a manifestation of an undiscovered principle of physics or a manifestation of known principles acting in ways we do not presently understand. Even so, though, God is under no obligation to uphold the universe in a completely rigid uniform way. So long as any exceptions are not so severe as to break God’s promise to provide some degree of uniformity in the world (such that mankind can subdue it and have dominion over it), our reasonable expectation of basic uniformity is not undermined in any way. I trust this is clear now.
— Indeed, I predicted you must specially plead miracles into being rational circumstance. You have done just that. Thank you.
“If logic was NOT created by God, and logic cannot be learned, God had it divinely revealed to Him by….?”
Um, no one, since logic is an aspect of His abstract, invariant, absolute nature and, therefore, part of who He is.
— is that basically true and only rarely untrue? Is that one of those circumstances where its untrue? Or “basically” true?
“Reality is now risk assessment, a gamble. Sorry, Mike, but you have done yourself more harm than good in admitting this of your world view.”
I trust you see your error now regarding this erroneous allegation against me.
— Heh. Yeah. I see a lot of things. An “error” is not one of them.
However, since you brought it up, ‘a gamble’ would be the appropriate term to describe the reality of an atheistic worldview which advocates a purely evolutionary universe. After all, what reason would there be in such a universe to expect the universe to behave in a law-like fashion at all, since there is no reason to expect that the universe will continue to behave in the future as it has in the past (apart from blind faith, since no one has observed the future).
—As opposed to “basically” behaving like it has in the past and only “rarely” misbehaving. I think the better question is what evidence do you have that the universe would NOT behave in a uniform fashion. For what reason do you have to think that it would behave irrationally? Current evidence dictates the universe has been uniform. If you feel as though there is a logical possibility through some degree of evidence that the universe hasn’t behaved rationally, please, lets see it.
Ironically, in a secular worldview, each time you are able to make a successful prediction about the future (the position of the planets and so on), it is a sort of ‘miracle’ because the secular worldview has zero logical reason whatsoever for the uniformity of nature and thus the success of science. Perhaps you should give this some serious thought.
—Why? The opposing position has no evidence to support an alternate reality. 😉
“Subject at hand, though, if the assertion is that an ax head can float, and is a rational prospect, it should be repeatable. Empirically demonstrated.”
Only if you believe that ALL KNOWLEDGE/ TRUTH must be gained via empirical means. Something that you have not (and cannot) prove to be true. In fact, you have succeeded in refuting yourself by demonstrating the very opposite.
—There are leaps, and then there are falls. I am going to need you to put this to a syllogism, please.
“Your claim is that its rational, and real, because it was written in this book, this book that never lies because the guy that attributed to have written it never lies, and it says that in the book, so it must be true.”
Actually, that sounds a whole lot more like the atheism-of-the-gaps (i.e. ‘science books say it/ evolution did it, so it must be true’) arguments that have become your forte’ here. I’ll leave that to the intellectually honest readers to decide, though.
—and that sounds like a dodge. 😉 The difference between those pesky science books and the Bible is that empirical means thing, which you say I haven’t demonstrated.
I said: “You do raise a good point, though: is genocide absolutely immoral in your worldview, or are there times and places where it is moral? Let me know on that.”
You replied: “as a means of self defense.”
Self-defense would not constitute ‘murder’. Let me ask it this way: when is (mass) murder absolutely forbidden in your worldview–or is it? Who gets to decide?
—Genocide isn’t murder either, at least by definition. You have changed your question. Moved the goal posts. (take note!) The question was essentially if genocide could ever be moral. I gave you an answer. Now you are changing the definition of genocide to be specifically murder. I can’t think of any time in which a mass murder would ever be justifiable, however I feel this question is designed to go some place else now that you realized your fallacy of a goal post move was correctly called out.
I asked (regarding my position): “Where is the circularity?”
You said: “The Bible claims the Bible to be true, because it’s the True Word of God.”
Um, again no. The Bible claims that it is the True Word of God (by the impossibility of the contrary). Where is the vicious circularity (especially since this argument establishes the objective basis of all knowledge, reasoning, and human experience instead of destroying it)
— your rephrasing of terminology does nothing to the circularity. Now, is the Bible “basically” true, and only “rarely” untrue? After all, the Bible is part of reality, and reality is subject to such lapses. According to you. Besides, if your assertion is that all arguments have some degree of circularity, then what you state must also be the case. That is your concession, btw. Not “inadvertent” or “implied”. I have a reason to believe, though, that what constitutes a “viciously circular” (and therefore illogical/arbitrary argument, according to you), and a “polite” circle (I say polite because I have no idea what the opposite of an illogical circular argument is that is also is one that is logically sound) is really just confirmation bias in action.
I asked: “Another good point you’ve raised here: why are circular arguments absolutely not allowed to be used to arrive at truth in your worldview? What standard do they violate and why SHOULD it never be violated in a purely atheistic, evolutionary universe?”
You said: “this was already answered, they can be used to form a basis of belief that is both not falsifiable, and can be used to rationalize nearly anything, though”
Why is that absolutely not allowed as a valid form of argumentation in your worldview? What standard absolutely forbids it and why should anyone else adhere to that standard if they don’t want to? This should be good.
—as I am sure you have noticed: it fails to convince. Clearly, nothing forbids it. You are using it in spades, and I (according to you) am using it, too. After all, according to you, ALL argumentation has a form of circularity to it, so it must not be forbidden in your world view. Which explains why its failing to convince.
You argued: “do you need a definition of “change of mind”? On day one, I state my will is unchanging, and I will always eat spicy foods.”
I replied: “Please show me where God stated that He would always Flood the Earth.”
You then said: “I don’t have to,”
Correct, you don’t have to support your argument(s), however, it looks really silly when you don’t. Not that I mind in the slightest, though!! ; )
—No, I don’t have to support what you claimed I needed to support, I only need to support what I assert. I don’t need to support God “always” will Flood the earth, that wasn’t the conclusion to be derived. You are employ a “distraction”, you see, a “red herring”, which is why you are bringing it up again. You know as well as I do what the argument was, however you are hoping your readers are not clever enough to realize the argument when presented. I have more “faith” in them. 😉
“it was in His purview before He did it. It is no longer after he did it.”
And what exactly would prevent an unchanging, sovereign God from interacting with His creation in various predetermined ways to accomplish His purposes? YOUR arbitrary say so? Riiiiiiight.
— dodge. You are arguing facts not admitted into evidence. If you are claiming God doesn’t change His will, and He indeed changes His will (having no qualms with flooding the earth to no longer flooding the earth) that indicates a change. Perhaps the problem here is not God, but your interpretation of him.
I said: “God most definitely doesn’t. Deluding influences do. How do you make the impossible leap from‘deluding influences lie’to ‘God lies’?”
You said: “Who sent the deluding influence? You are arguing that a marksmen didn’t score the bull’s eye, the bullet did.”
Nope, I’m arguing that the marksman is NOT a bullet. It’s up to you to prove that He is. Please support your argument with something other than false analogies, or retract it.
—- would the entities in question have been deluded had God not sent an influence upon them? I am genuinely surprised you are this in denial about what God does. Again, are you sure the problem is not with God, but your interpretation of him? If I write you purposefully bad instructions on how to get to a party because I would like to hide the location of the party from you, the influence that is deluding you is my bad instructions. I have lied to you, by means of an influence of your perception. Semantics aren’t a savior, Mike. Words still mean things.
Again, you need to prove that a deluding influence could not exist and function within the economy of God’s creation in such a way that allowed God’s perfectly holy character to remain completely untarnished (especially since ALL agents and agencies within God’s creation are, in fact, working (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to propagate and establish absolute truth via the ongoing undermining and subsequent destruction of all deceptive forces, to achieve God’s righteous purpose of bringing about an ultimate ‘truth filled’ reality, free from the presence of any and all such influences. Of course, the Architect of such a reality (where truth is all there is) would be nothing less than the supreme embodiment of One who is TRUTHFUL. You really have no basis for arguing against this, since:
—- No, sir, I don’t. I need to report what God did, which is as the “inerrant” Bible states. This is what makes God a logical impossibility as written, not as “described”. One whom is all truthful does not send deluding influences. That is a contradiction in terms. If you are to describe the God of the Bible as all truthful (and you have) and the Bible directly indicates he sent a deluding influence, then you do not have a logical possibility.
.
1) You have no basis for the validity of the reasoning you’re attempting to use here, in the first place, and therefore can’t know anything.
—- “validity” means nothing to the reasoning working or being used. A trespassing robber has no validity in being in a home he is to burgle, that in no way means he isn’t or can’t burgle it.
2) You have no absolute standard of Truth of your own by which to call anything absolutely false in your worldview.
— assertion. I told you that which could be empirically demonstrated. Peer reviewed. You are engaging in the fallacy of repetition.
3) Given those two things, you are forced to concede that what I have put forth is, indeed, a possibility, since you cannot know for certain that anything is absolutely false or impossible in your worldview. If the claim is at least possible, you have no argument (not that you ever did).
—- I have no agency forcing me to concede to a fallacy, and a premise that doesn’t allow for a conclusion to follow. I especially have no desire to concede that, since I demonstrated how the God of the Bible as you described him is an illogical possibility, one that you are forming your worldview on. This was also concede by you in your statement that an unchanging God “basically” follows the rules of his creation, and only “rarely” breaks the rules he created. Not inadvertently conceded. Not implication of concession. Directly given.
“If the ‘validity’ (of reasoning) is all you are interested in, I simply (and correctly) state the learning or concluding if your reasoning is valid is not a condition required for it to work.”
And you formed that unjustified, arbitrary conclusion with reasoning that you trust solely on blind faith (as has been demonstrated to death over the course of this thread). Yes, I’ve heard. Somehow it never gets old, though!!
— and yet again you change words, those things that mean things. “Validity” and “justified” are not always the same thing.
You said:“Hard wired exists in an evolutionary world view. Don’t borrow from it. ;)”
I asked: “By whom is the hard wiring done?”
You then replied: “evolutionary trait. (Don’t ask for evidence unless you are willing to read it).”
Well, I am super busy, however, I will definitely make time to read the evidence which demonstrates that evolution is, in fact, a ‘Whom’. Can’t wait!
—leading question fallacy, then. I thought you were more intellectually honest than that. The point behind the answer, which you are dodging, is that there is no whom, but a “what”, which as stated is an evolutionary trait.
, due to your professed worldview (especially those which claim that viciously circular logical fallacies are somehow not logical fallacies—I’m still blown away by the sheer irrational audacity of that one!).
— And yet again, you change the statement. I have stated that a circular argument is not a logical impossibility, it contains no contradictions. Therefore, it is not illogical. It is however, fallacious.
Feel free to check back for those potential forthcoming blog posts I alluded to, as they should provide you with sufficient examples of the monologues you seem to be desiring here. As always, thanks again for stopping by and contributing to the cause. You are welcome here anytime!!
—so, the check is in the mail?
LikeLike
“like I said, you simply don’t understand the implements you claim to hold. A circular argument by its inception is not an illogical prospect, as there are no contradictions. Here, from Wiki: “The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade”.
How about these:
‘laws of logic do not exist because laws of logic do not exist’
‘truth does not exist because truth does not exist’
‘knowledge does not exist because knowledge does not exist’
Are those claims logical possibilities? Why or why not?
LikeLike
Ipse dixit.
Informal fallacy, the conclusion and the premise are the same. Fallacious, but logically possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
Cousin to “proof by assertion”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
FYI, an “Informal fallacy” :The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic.
Same source.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just so I’m clear, is that a ‘yes’ to all three then?
LikeLike
Yes, Mike. Logically possible, but fallacious.
LikeLike
So you’re claiming to know for certain it is logically possible that knowledge, truth, and logic do not exist.
Correct?
LikeLike
As I see it, you made those three claims, and asked me if they were logically possible, that being such we can determine if those statements/assertions are true based on the evidence presented.
Considering they have no contradictions in terms, I am stating the previous sentences in question can bore out a conclusion based on reasoning (ie, are logically possible). That doesn’t mean, however, the conclusion will be accurate, the premises are correct, or the syllogism is applicable.
If you are asking my opinion of the veracity of the premises, I would disagree. I believe logic to exist, truth to exist, and knowledge to exist. As you have stated them, though, the conclusion is reasonably derived from the premises, no matter how unconventional they may be.
Would you like to make your statements into logical impossibilities, they would read something like this:
Laws of logic do exist because laws of logic don’t exist.
Knowledge exists because knowledge doesn’t exist.
Truth exists because truth doesn’t exist.
As you can see, the conclusion is 1) not derived from the evidence/premise in question,and 2) the premise and conclusion/reassertion (fallacy) are polar opposites, a contradictory position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility
Granted, some of the above link is subject to a degree of creativity. I could imagine a reality with no logic, no knowledge, and subjectively, no truth. It would not reflect this one, obviously, and such premises would need more evidence than what you have provided to logically conclude.
LikeLike
Easy there, Roo! No need to get excited and verbose–let’s just keep it simple. Given what you have claimed regarding what constitutes a ‘logical possibility’ in your worldview, it is true that you know for certain it is logically possible for truth, knowledge, and logic to not exist. Correct?
A simple yes or no is fine at this point.
LikeLike
” it is true that you know for certain it is logically possible for truth, knowledge, and logic to not exist. Correct?”
Now, again, take note:
I am not just answering 1 question, am I?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
You are committing me to YOUR conclusion of the syllogism, and presupposing it to be correct, despite where the fallacious implications may take it. I have no desire to accept your syllogism as I find the premise (which is also the conclusion) to be in err.
It is true that I know for certain it is logically possible for the existence of truth, knowledge, and logic to be argued against, and it is true that your argument contained no contradictions in their statement, meaning they are logically possible despite being an informal fallacy.
Semantics are not your savior, and I can’t help but notice your entire methodology appears to be based on some degree of deceptive or fallacious behavior.
LikeLike
So, that’s a Yes, correct? Stay with me here, Roo.
LikeLike
I have given you a response that adequately answers the question. I understand its not the answer you want, however that is the nature of asking deceptive questions from the onset.
Now, onto something more productive:
Do you feel your premise in your truth/knowledge/logic syllogism could bear out a conclusion?
Bear in mind, the conclusion need not comport with reality, just that the conclusion is derived from what evidence you admitted?
LikeLike
Well, I’ll be. It’s getting difficult to even get a simple answer out of you now. Strange.
Once more, I ask: your answer to the previous inquiries is a resounding ‘yes’, correct?
No need to be shy about it…..step up to the mic and let’s have it! Surely you’re not ashamed to do so?
LikeLike
Stop asking fallacious questions, then.
You are asking me that
1) I have knowledge of something
when
2) knowledge doesn’t exist.
Based on those two premises of your question, its a logically impossible circumstance. You have the premises in opposition to one another and are hoping for my answer to conclude them: logical impossibility.
Unlike your original syllogism, the premises are different. In doing so, you have demonstrated the fallacy in your original premises that direct your conclusion to be invalid. You have added more evidence/assertions, and shown the original conclusion drawn to be false.
“Well, I’ll be. It’s getting difficult to even get a simple answer out of you now. Strange.”
Oh? Try getting a straight answer on what “divine revelation” is, beyond “natural” or “special revelation”.
Either way, its not a simple question.
Stop.
Being.
Deceptive.
LikeLike
Easy there. Again, no need to get excited. So the answer to the question is now ‘No’. Correct?
LikeLike
The question is a logical impossibility: it cannot have a conclusion drawn from the components of the question.
LikeLike
Why not?
LikeLike
“Based on those two premises of your question, its a logically impossible circumstance. You have the premises in opposition to one another and are hoping for my answer to conclude them”
De ja vu.
Quid pro quo:
Does a correct conclusion follow from recognizing non contradiction? (you need not answer “Yes” or “No”.)
LikeLike
Again, no need to get confrontational. So your answer is ‘no’. OK.
Would any logical proof that ultimately argued for the non-existence of logic, truth, and knowledge necessarily be impossible for the same reason(s)?
Or is it ever possible to: logically disprove logic, prove true that truth does not exist, or to know that knowledge doesn’t exist in your worldview?
LikeLike
“Again, no need to get confrontational. So your answer is ‘no’. OK.”
— Did you see me answer “no”? I have flatly told you why the question is leading, fallacious, deceptive, and impossible. I have answered your question as to why it can’t be answered, hoping you would appreciate the error of your way. You haven’t disappointed. 😉
“Would any logical proof that ultimately argued for the non-existence of logic, truth, and knowledge necessarily be impossible for the same reason(s)?” —- by application? Are you adding more to your syllogism? It looks that way. Were I to hazard a guess, you are fleshing out multiple conclusions from far to few premises (fallacious or not). Perhaps you should write a new one based on desired application as part of the premises, as opposed to fallaciously asserting 1 premise, and essentially holding it axiom to then create more conclusions, axioms, and premises. Anything I can do to help you think through this, Mike. I know its difficult when you get your world view challenged.
“Or is it ever possible to: logically disprove logic, prove true that truth does not exist, or to know that knowledge doesn’t exist in your worldview?” — sure, it can be disproven by compiling logically possible premises, however it rely on a host of fallacy and question begging from the beginning, probably forming something circular in order to get the job done. But, since it would be formed fallaciously, it would fail practically. That doesn’t mean such argumentation couldn’t exist in some form.
Now, since I have answered 3 of your questions with none of mine being answered, quid pro quo x3:
Does a correct conclusion follow from recognizing non contradiction? (you need not answer “Yes” or “No”.)
Do you consider an incorrect conclusion to be “impossibility” when it comes to deriving a conclusion?
Do you consider fallacy to be illogical even when it arrives at a correct conclusion?
Observe the following:
I saw a frog eating a fly.
I found another creature eating a fly.
This creature is there fore a frog.
Is this a logically possible condition and conclusion? Does it bear any contradictions? MUST the creature I saw secondly be a frog? Do you see now how a fallacy can skew a postulate? Again, you need not answer this last bit, but I hope it shows exactly how fallacy and logical possibility can co-exist, and lead to a logical conclusion but not be correct.
LikeLike
Wow, Roo! You sure know how to ‘overkill’ a non-answer. After wading through the word salad, I’m still getting a mixed signal from ‘yes’, to ‘no’, to ‘I don’t know’ from you here, regarding logical possibilities in your worldview. Sounds like you may not even understand what your position is on this. That’s gotta be frustrating for you.
Tell you what, let’s tone down the gobbledy-gook and see if you can give me a simple, straight answer this time. Are contradictions always impossible in your worldview or are they sometimes OK (as you seem to arguing here in affirming that the existence of logic can be disproven with logic, it can be proven true that truth does not exist, etc.)?
Yes? No?. I don’t know? Pick one. It’s not rocket science, after all.
LikeLike
“Are contradictions always impossible in your worldview”. Yes. It is impossible to form a conclusion from a contradictory premises.
Now, quid pro quo x4:
Does a correct conclusion follow from recognizing non contradiction? (you need not answer “Yes” or “No”.)
Do you consider an incorrect conclusion to be “impossibility” when it comes to deriving a conclusion?
Do you consider fallacy to be illogical even when it arrives at a correct conclusion?
Do you consider after the fact addition of evidence or circumstance to apply to a previously stated syllogism?
LikeLike
I asked: “Are contradictions always impossible in your worldview”.
You replied: “Yes.”
Great! Upon what do you base that claim in a purely atheistic, empiricist worldview? Where have you experienced or observed universal knowledge such that you could verify that contradictions are always impossible and, therefore, false everywhere in the universe? That’s a very dubious (not to mention, contradictory), blind faith assertion you’ve got there.
“It is impossible to form a conclusion from a contradictory premises.”
You mean like determining the reliability of one’s reasoning with that same unjustified reasoning, perhaps? After all, with that claim you are asserting that:
1)You have knowledge
when
2) Knowledge doesn’t exist.
Unless of course, you’d like to explain the process of deriving one’s basis for ‘knowledge’ from ‘not knowledge’ (i.e. blind faith).
Otherwise, I humbly request that you
stop.
being.
deceptive (i.e. using reasoning, logic, truth, and knowledge to try and undermine the existence of reasoning, logic, truth, and knowledge). ; )
“Now, quid pro quo x4:”
Actually, we can stop right there.
You, sir seem to have some serious ‘splaining to do, since your ‘logical possibility’ ain’t one.
Que your reply, in which you try to demonstrate that arbitrary, contradictory, self-defeating claims are, in fact, logical possibilities too, in 3…2….1. Can’t wait to see the Wiki on that one, Roo! : )
LikeLike
“Great! Upon what do you base that claim in a purely atheistic, empiricist worldview” — it can be demonstrated that a contradiction cannot bear out a useful conclusion.
” Where have you experienced or observed universal knowledge such that you could verify that contradictions are always impossible and, therefore, false everywhere in the universe?” — I think the better question to ask is where have I observed evidence that such COULD bear out a useful conclusion. There is no evidence to indicate a contradiction could do such a thing. With no evidence to such a premise, it is unreasonable to think such a contradiction could conclude logically.
“You mean like determining the reliability of one’s reasoning with that same unjustified reasoning, perhaps?” — that isn’t an impossibility/contradiction, its an informal fallacy Secondly “justified” doesn’t prevent such reasoning from working. And lastly, its YOUR synopsis of my position, not specifically what I stated.
“with that claim you are asserting that:
1)You have knowledge
when
2) Knowledge doesn’t exist.”
—- I have never made such a claim. Strawman. Pure and simple.
“Unless of course, you’d like to explain the process of deriving one’s basis for ‘knowledge’ from ‘not knowledge’ ” — considering this was never my claim, I feel no compunction to do so. I claimed in a previous conversation that knowledge came from experience.
Now, Quid pro Quo x5
Does a correct conclusion follow from recognizing non contradiction? (you need not answer “Yes” or “No”.)
Do you consider an incorrect conclusion to be “impossibility” when it comes to deriving a conclusion?
Do you consider fallacy to be illogical even when it arrives at a correct conclusion?
Do you consider after the fact addition of evidence or circumstance to apply to a previously stated syllogism?
“You, sir seem to have some serious ‘splaining to do, since your ‘logical possibility’ ain’t one.” — which one is that? Your syllogism that is logically possible, or your assesment of your syllogism that isn’t logically possible after you assume facts not entered as premises?
LikeLike
I said: “Unless of course, you’d like to explain the process of deriving one’s basis for ‘knowledge’ from ‘not knowledge’ ”
You said: “considering this was never my claim, I feel no compunction to do so. I claimed in a previous conversation that knowledge came from experience.”
Which all ultimately relies upon your unsubstantiated reasoning. Yes, I know. It’s self-refuting. Let it go, Roo. It’s over.
LikeLike
“Which all ultimately relies upon your unsubstantiated reasoning. Yes, I know. It’s self-refuting. Let it go, Roo. It’s over.”
— “unsubstantiated”? Mike, words mean things. “not supported or proven by evidence”. According to you, I have no supporting evidence, but… the evidence I do have is circular, which at the same time, is also self refuting. Despite being circular. I will let you mull over your opinion of my case, but in the mean time, please, let me help you think this through.
If the evidence points to circularity (as you have asserted), it exists, and is not self refuting, as it must support itself to be circular. That would very much make for substantiated reasoning, though fallacious.
If the evidence presented is not supporting, it couldn’t support itself to refute itself. There is a paucity to begin with. Oh, and obviously, it wouldn’t be circular either.
So, according to you it is logically possible for an argument to be self refuting and circular at the same time, all why being non supportive of a conclusion to begin with. Mike, I hate to break it to you, but, your opinion is a logical impossibility. Something you are then attempting to derive a conclusion from to judge my assertions, which lends me to my original deduction: you do not hold the implements needed in this conversation that you claim to hold.
Please, consider the absurdity of the opinions you have rendered, study as to what constitutes a fallacious argument, invalid argument, and logically impossible argument. Using those tools, I would then like to see what “divine revelation” is through the diatribe you declared you will write.
the mean time
Quid Pro Quo x4
Does a correct conclusion follow from recognizing non contradiction? (you need not answer “Yes” or “No”.)
Do you consider an incorrect conclusion to be “impossibility” when it comes to deriving a conclusion?
Do you consider fallacy to be illogical even when it arrives at a correct conclusion?
Do you consider after the fact addition of evidence or circumstance to apply to a previously stated syllogism?
LikeLike
‘the evidence I do have is circular, which at the same time, is also self refuting.’
There’s one for the front pages. Priceless!
UPDATE: I should clarify that after re-re-reading what you wrote, it does not seem that you were saying what you appeared to be stating here. My apologies.
However, the statement is still notable, as it looks like it may be the closest I ever get to having you actually admit what your position truly amounts to (and what you have described IS precisely what it amounts to!).
Believe it or not, intellectual honesty is not usually the strong suit of those who simply refuse to be convinced of the falsity of their professed worldview and are, instead, content to continue in suppression (denial) of the truth at any cost. I still believe there’s hope for you yet, though!
; )
LikeLike
By which you mean what I stated was not something that I stated at all, but was reviewing your assessment of my position.
A review of your position, which you then spin into being a a confession of my position.
A review of your position which is logically impossible, that being, your position’s premises are in opposition to one another.
A review of your position you agree is accurate.
P1: You agree I have correctly described your assessment of my position.
P2. Your description declares my position circular.
P3. Your description declares my position self refuting
C: You agree your description is an impossible one to make (p2 and p3 are logical impossibilities when applied to the same circumstance).
P1.1 You agree your description is an impossible one to make
P2.1 You behave in a rational or logical manner.
C.1.1: This is yet another impossibility, the 2 premises cannot derive to a conclusion. A premise is in err. P2.1 is suspect.
P1.2 P2.1 is suspect
P2.2 P1,1
C2.2 P1,2 is sound
“Believe it or not, intellectual honesty is not usually the strong suit of those who simply refuse to be convinced of the falsity of their professed worldview and are, instead, content to continue in suppression (denial) of the truth at any cost”
Concluded: Your ability to behave in a rational or logical manner is suspect.
Feel free to remove the previous comment still awaiting moderation, I feel its obsolete now.
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
**In the interest of closure, here are my final follow ups to your prior comments based upon our most recent discoveries about the self-contradictory nature and, therefore, logical impossibility of your position (you can’t say I didn’t tell you so):
“so by what circumstance are you sure that you had something divinely revealed to you? This is another double standard. According to what I can piece together of your non explanation, you are revealed the Bible through “means”. You then assume immediately that such a circumstance is real, and that your senses were reliable from the onset to have received such a revelation. You are making use of the same basal assumption, but claiming a special pleading behind it that yours is correct.”
Acknowledgment of same is self-refuting. You are simply attempting to use logic and reasoning to undermine the ONLY POSSIBLE source of logic and reasoning. That should be crystal clear to anyone following along at this point.
“Like I stated. Mike, you don’t know what you are talking about. Please , spot the illogical, IE contradictory nature of a circular argument.”
Hopefully this is clearer now regarding the contradictory nature of YOUR specific circular argument regarding YOUR basis for knowledge in YOUR worldview (I noticed you ‘skipped’ over the explanation I provided as to why your claim was self-contradictory the first time around 8/17/15 12:27 pm). If not, reread the prior exchange(s).
I previously said: Again, not even close. Logic is not based upon the natural world in any way, but transcends it as a direct reflection of the unchanging, immaterial, sovereign character and nature of God.
You said: please conclude the thought, Mike. If logic can be used to describe reality, and the laws of reality can be suspended, that means Logic can be suspended.
Laws of logic don’t actually ‘describe’ reality. Rather, they are conceptual in nature, and are the ‘prescribed’ standards of correct reasoning from premises to conclusions. They reflect the thinking of God, which forms the basis of all reality. The ability of an omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign God to interact with His creation (including His own created PHYSICAL (not LOGICAL) laws, which He Himself is not subject to) in order to accomplish His purposes:
1) Is perfectly logically valid (after all, how could God negate logical laws when logical laws are, themselves, grounded in the character and nature of God? That being the case, everything He does is necessarily logical).
2) In no way shape or form undermines the ability of mankind to reasonably proceed with the assumption that nature will function in a basically uniform fashion such that we can accurately predict certain things about the future, based upon God’s promises that He will sustain creation in a basically uniform way at all times (see Genesis and elsewhere).
3) Provides us with the only rational basis for expecting ANY degree of uniformity in nature whatsoever (by the impossibility of the contrary).
Ironically, it is your worldview which has the problem of undermining the laws of logic here. After all, if laws of logic are merely descriptions of the physical universe, then they lose their universality and, subsequently, their binding authority.
You could never know that logic applied outside of your limited experience and observations the same way everywhere, since we would expect different regions of the universe to have different laws of logic, since different regions of the universe are described differently from one another. Also, you would have no reason for expecting laws of logic to apply the same way in the future as they have in the past, since no one has observed the universe’s future.
Since the universe is constantly changing, if laws of logic were descriptions of such conditions, they would have to constantly change as well. Try as you may, you do not (and cannot) live according to that belief (as your comments here clearly demonstrate).
“This would mean your suggestion is contradictory:”
It isn’t (see above). However, so what if it was? You have no basis, whatsoever, for assuming that logic applies universally in all places and at all times (given your worldview and precommitment to empiricism) such that you could know that contradictions are absolutely impossible and false.
In fact, you would be forced to admit that they could be completely possible and true in some places and at some times (like here and now). Yikes!
I said: “A rare, isolated suspension or superseding of a physical law (which may or may not have even been the means by which God accomplished certain miracles) would in no way negate the laws of logic whatsoever. Your assertion is simply erroneous and really just amounts to a misappropriated slippery slope fallacy.”
You replied: “If logic describes reality, and reality becomes suspended, logic must too get suspended.”
Well it doesn’t, therefore, it mustn’t.
Again, misappropriated slippery slope fallacy (x2).
“Indeed, I predicted you must specially plead miracles into being rational circumstance.”
Actually, you are forced to concede them as a rational possibility, since you can’t:
1) Know anything to be absolutely irrational
2) Know anything to be absolutely impossible
“Heh. Yeah. I see a lot of things. An “error” is not one of them.”
Such is the nature of self-deception. I wouldn’t count on it fooling anyone else, though, if I were you.
I said: “However, since you brought it up, ‘a gamble’ would be the appropriate term to describe the reality of an atheistic worldview which advocates a purely evolutionary universe. After all, what reason would there be in such a universe to expect the universe to behave in a law-like fashion at all, since there is no reason to expect that the universe will continue to behave in the future as it has in the past (apart from blind faith, since no one has observed the future).”
You replied: “I think the better question is what evidence do you have that the universe would NOT behave in a uniform fashion.”
Like I said: you have NO reason (as the continued absence of one most definitely demonstrates). I’d try to hide that fact too, if I were you. Very embarrassing.
“Current evidence dictates the universe has been uniform.”
So it WILL BE because it HAS BEEN? Using that logic, I WILL never die a natural death because I HAVE NOT died in the past. It’s question begging. Not to mention you can’t even justify that claim, since you:
1) Can’t know anything for certain about the present
2) Can’t know anything for certain about the past
3) Can’t know anything for certain about the future
Primarily due to the logically impossible means by which you claim to arrive at knowledge coupled with your precommitment to empiricism (which is demonstrably false). That’s what a worldview without God looks like. Not very pretty at all!
“I can’t think of any time in which a mass murder would ever be justifiable,”
But, absent an absolute moral standard, it COULD BE perfectly OK in your worldview, since nothing can be absolutely immoral. That’s the point. EEEEEEK!
“I have a reason to believe, though, that what constitutes a “viciously circular” (and therefore illogical/arbitrary argument, according to you), and a “polite” circle (I say polite because I have no idea what the opposite of an illogical circular argument is that is also is one that is logically sound) is really just confirmation bias in action.”
Actually you don’t have a reason to believe that at all, based upon you having no logically possible, competing claim of your own.
However, for the sake of clarification, the appropriate term is ‘virtuously’ circular. This is the opposite of the viciously circular argument you have posited (which is arbitrary, self-refuting and destroys any basis for knowledge, truth, or logic), in that a ‘virtuously’ circular argument establishes the objective basis of all knowledge, human experience, and reasoning (as well as all other necessary preconditions of intelligibility, for that matter). Apricots and kiwis.
You argued: “do you need a definition of “change of mind”? On day one, I state my will is unchanging, and I will always eat spicy foods.”
I replied: “Please show me where God stated that He would always Flood the Earth.”
You then said: “I don’t have to,”
I said: Correct, you don’t have to support your argument(s), however, it looks really silly when you don’t. Not that I mind in the slightest, though!! ; )
You said: No, I don’t have to support what you claimed I needed to support, I only need to support what I assert.
And, since you never did, I suppose I don’t have to tell you that your claim is still unproven (and unprovable).
After all, it was you who claimed:
“Nothing was every proved by talking” (8/13/15 5:38 pm)
You said: “Who sent the deluding influence? You are arguing that a marksmen didn’t score the bull’s eye, the bullet did.”
I said: “Nope, I’m arguing that the marksman is NOT a bullet. It’s up to you to prove that He is. Please support your argument with something other than false analogies, or retract it.”
You said: “would the entities in question have been deluded had God not sent an influence upon them?”
Irrelevant. The question is: is it possible for a sovereign God to both have and accomplish a purely truthful purpose via the things He allows to exist and function within His creation AND can He do so in such a way that His perfect, immutable, righteous character remains untarnished?
Since you can’t know anything to be absolutely impossible in your worldview (especially in light of recent developments), your answer would necessarily have to be:
-Of course it is!-
Although, I do know why you were trying so (desperately) hard to avoid admitting it.
“I am genuinely surprised you are this in denial about what God does. Again, are you sure the problem is not with God, but your interpretation of him? If I write you purposefully bad instructions on how to get to a party because I would like to hide the location of the party from you, the influence that is deluding you is my bad instructions.”
False analogy, though, since the ‘delusion’ in question was both produced by and carried out by a separate, willing, sentinent entity—not God. It’s like arguing that if I sent my wife to the grocery store knowing that she will speed on the way there, then I am somehow guilty of speeding too (which is absurd).
Again, given your professed position you’d be forced to admit that God could allow such entities to exist and function in His creation in such a way as to:
1) Ultimately accomplish a completely truthful and righteous purpose
2) Allow Him to maintain His perfectly holy, righteous character completely intact.
As such, you have no argument.
“One whom is all truthful does not send deluding influences.”
Unless, of course, those influences are actually being utilized for the ultimate undermining and destruction of themselves in establishing a perfectly truthful purpose and reality, as foreordained by God—-which they are.
I’d say such propagation of truth and righteousness would be exactly what we would expect from someone who is all truthful. Again, you have no argument.
“That is a contradiction in terms.”
It isn’t if God performs it in a perfectly non-contradictory way—which he does. Again, you are forced to admit the possibility and have no basis for any argument here given the facts that:
1) You can’t know anything for certain (least of all that anything is impossible)
2) You have no valid complaint against any alleged ‘contradictions’, since you can’t know that they are always impossible and false in your worldview. Again, there could be times and places where they are perfectly true and possible for all you know.
“ I especially have no desire to concede that, since I demonstrated how the God of the Bible as you described him is an illogical possibility, one that you are forming your worldview on.”
Well, since you HAVE conceded that Christianity is a (read: the only) logical possibility (as the record clearly shows), while demonstrating that your own position is not one (since it is internally inconsistent, arbitrary, and self-refuting), I don’t think there’s really anything left to accomplish here (other than your repentance and surrender to the truth you are obviously suppressing).
However, truth does not always equal persuasion or profession. It is impossible to force someone to surrender an irrational position if they are determined not to (despite having it exposed over and over and over again to be such). I do hope you change your mind, though. Once again, I thank you for the exchange and the exposure of our respective worldviews here. I appreciate it more than you know!
LikeLike
You said:
“P1: You agree I have correctly described your assessment of my position.
P2. Your description declares my position circular.
P3. Your description declares my position self refuting
C: You agree your description is an impossible one to make (p2 and p3 are logical impossibilities when applied to the same circumstance).
P1.1 You agree your description is an impossible one to make
P2.1 You behave in a rational or logical manner.
C.1.1: This is yet another impossibility, the 2 premises cannot derive to a conclusion. A premise is in err. P2.1 is suspect.
P1.2 P2.1 is suspect
P2.2 P1,1
C2.2 P1,2 is sound”
AFTER YOU SAID:
“Nothing was every proved by talking” (8/13/15 5:38 pm)
So much for the consistency of atheism (x2). Priceless!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You responded: “Correct, Mike. It was concluded. Not proven.”
Why SHOULD I continue addressing such assertions?
LikeLike
You replied: “Ultimately, you shouldn’t.”
LikeLike
1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
LikeLiked by 1 person