Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ BR IX

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Stratnerd's second post

    I thought after all the discussion in the Talk thread that Stratnerd would go read the Carl Sagan thread and have some idea of what Hilston was talking about but apparently he didn't. Since Hilston also included the beginnings of an argument in his first round, and Stratnerd didn't really, I think Stratnerd is now on his heels. I hope he doesn't want direct answers to the 500 questions he asked. I predict a discussion about the 'listing official questions at the end of each post' rules.
    "I believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

    "Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot

    Comment


    • #77
      Hilston,

      Have you read any of Godel's work? If you haven't, I'm sure you'd enjoy him.

      Keep up the extraordinary work.

      SS

      Comment


      • #78
        Godel was some kinda smart.

        Interesting Reading.

        In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

        Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

        Comment


        • #79
          Looks to me like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

          Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by PureX
            Hilston's argument looks like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

            Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology based on his own beliefs.
            For some reason I couldn't edit this post, so I just reposted it, corrected.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by PureX
              Looks to me like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

              Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology.
              In the context of this Battle Royale (which so far looks to be avoiding the supposed topic altogether), I would suggest that God per se is not the object of the relevant presupposition. That is, Hilston et al. are not presupposing a God, or a logical God. Evolution does not pose a conflict with God, or with a logical God. Evolution is a logical concept, indeed, it is an extraordinarily logical concept, to the point of inevitability. Evolutionary theory does pose a conflict with the specific story told in a specific document (collection of documents, actually). And yet lots of people who believe in God, and take the Bible very seriously, have no problems with evolutionary theory. How is that possible? It is because the creationist's fundamental presupposition is not that a logical God exists, but that the series of documents we call the Bible is in fact a single, complete, and inerrant account of the history of the universe. From that presupposition one infers the existence of a particular logical God. One does not assume/presuppose that God exists, and therefore believes what the Bible says. One assumes/presupposes that the Bible is inerrant and complete, and therefore believes that whatever it says about the existence, nature, and actions of God is unquestionably correct. Circular logic at its finest.
              Check out this

              Comment


              • #82
                If Hilston intends to dismiss the various claims from the grandstands of circular reasoning, it seems he has his work cut out for him.

                I don't think that circular reasoning necessarily undermines truth, though it can give good reason to doubt.

                Comment


                • #83
                  AND PLEASE! WHY CAN'T WE EDIT POSTS HERE? (Caps intended)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by jhodgeiii
                    If Hilston intends to dismiss the various claims from the grandstands of circular reasoning, it seems he has his work cut out for him.

                    I don't think that circular reasoning necessarily undermines truth, though it can give good reason to doubt.
                    Circular reasoning does not necessarily undermine truth, but it is necessarily incapable of establishing or demonstrating said truth. The Bible may in fact be complete and inerrant, but one can't establish or demonstrate that fact by assuming it in advance.
                    Check out this

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by sentientsynth
                      Godel was some kinda smart.
                      Yeah, but he ended up some kind of crazy. His Incompleteness Theorem is very stimulating.

                      Back on topic: The transcendentalists seem to be wanting to do a giant Modus Ponens, as follows:

                      K->G
                      K
                      :.G

                      where G=God, and K=Knowledge (or whatever)

                      I think everyone agrees that the argument is valid. But, for soundness, K needs to be defined, and premise K->G needs to be shown. Otherwise, we are left with:

                      ((K->G)^K)->G

                      Which is a boring tautology true in all possible worlds.

                      I hink it is safe to say that Hilston, Clete, Van Til, etc. can focus all of their efforts on showing K->G.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Stratnerd wrote: [I]Throughout your opening post you equate evolution with atheism but these two things are wholly separate. Is it not possible to believe in evolution and in God? I can think of three resolute Christians who did...[/I]

                        I do not see where Hilston attempts to equate evolution with atheism. He asserts that one holding to the theory of evolution has an incorrect view of God.

                        Clearly it can be shown that many believe in God but also believe that our current universe came about by purely “natural” processes apart from any supernatural intervention. Hilston is asserting that this, holding to the modern version of evolution, is an irrational position because it is a position that is not aligned with a correct view of God and the truth He has communicated about His creation. Such a position could appear creative, thoughtful, and even be passionately held by a similarly unaligned group or individual. It cannot however be rational.

                        Faith = taking God @ His Word

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by sentientsynth
                          Godel was some kinda smart.

                          Interesting Reading.
                          I have an article on my desk top "RANDOM REALITY" by
                          Marcus Chown that quotes Godel. Looks like he uses the same quote. Have you seen th earticle I mentioned?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by bachartsayid2
                            Stratnerd wrote: [I]Throughout your opening post you equate evolution with atheism but these two things are wholly separate. Is it not possible to believe in evolution and in God? I can think of three resolute Christians who did...[/I]

                            I do not see where Hilston attempts to equate evolution with atheism. He asserts that one holding to the theory of evolution has an incorrect view of God.

                            Clearly it can be shown that many believe in God but also believe that our current universe came about by purely “natural” processes apart from any supernatural intervention. Hilston is asserting that this, holding to the modern version of evolution, is an irrational position because it is a position that is not aligned with a correct view of God and the truth He has communicated about His creation. Such a position could appear creative, thoughtful, and even be passionately held by a similarly unaligned group or individual. It cannot however be rational.

                            Faith = taking God @ His Word
                            All this says is that Hilton's meaningless tautology is based on his own understanding of the bible, and on the God he believes to be depicted, there. Adding the 'inerrent bible theory' to the tautology does nothing whatever to verify it, objectify it, or to give it meaning to anyone but himself.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              I do not see where Hilston attempts to equate evolution with atheism.
                              Thus, the anti-theist/agnostic is without a rational grounding of a major tool in the scientific enterprise, the principle of induction. The Creationist has a rational foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature and that future events under certain conditions will be like past events under similar conditions...This is the religious nature of the Evolutionist worldview. In the case of the Creationist, faith in induction rests upon the nature and character of God. In the case of the Evolutionist, it is a mystery (i.e. axiomatic), it is magic, and a blind religious commitment to man's own imagined autonomy and the authority of his own reason. Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science.
                              Here, in the crux of Hilston's arguments, I think this underlying assertion can be found:
                              “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Er, I was quoting bachartsayid2 and Hilston respectively.
                                “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X