Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[sentientsynth]

The Bible does make some falsifiable statements, most of which have been falsified! See
6 Day creation
Age of the earth is 6000 years
Global Flood
The sun stopping in the sky.

m_d,
It's good that we agree that the Bible is falsifiable. I won't go down the road of arguing point for point on these things. I'll only say that they aren't logically precluded from being true and I have yet to encounter irrefutable evidence which plainly falsifies them. I wrote to ThePhy concerning why this is my default position in this post. In a nutshell, Jesus Christ answers the central questions of existence in such a way as to authoritatively authenticate His answers to the peripheral questions of existence. On this basis, we "presuppose the truth of all of these" until they are falsified. And as far as what is sufficient grounds for falsification when the evidences are shaky, see the link I provided above.

Please show some extra-biblical confirmation that this amazing event took place.

Why isn't biblical confirmation credible?

Even the Biblical account itself is self refuting. If you disagree, please solve the "Easter Challange".

Spell it out.

For example, the well worn Problem of Evil:
P1. God is all loving
P2. God is all powerful.
P3. Thousands of innocents died in a recent tsunami.

This is of course not a falsification, because God works in mysterious ways.

As I said before, the problem of evil proves God's existence. Of those who died in the tsunami, those who were innocent went to be with Him, a far better fate.

There is nothing that could be pointed to and said "if god exists, then this COULD not happen". If you disagree, please find a real world example.

2+2=5 If God exists, this could not happen. And it doesn't, and it never will.

By contrast, the FSM likes to kill people indiscriminantly from time to time, so she accounts for this much better.

I'm sure this'll go unnoticed--again--but I'll repeat for the sake of the audience (if there is any audience.) On this basis your FSM cannot account for the observed objective morality that this present in existence. Therefore she is falsfied.

And if you disagree that objective morality exists on the basis that cultures don't agree, do this simple experiment. Enter the house of the leader of the culture and brutally slay his children. What do you think will be the universal reaction? Or steal from him, or bear false witness against him. Moral beliefs aren't found in actions, but in reactions. Children have an especially keen sense of what is fair. This is a testimony to the loving justice of the true Living God, the Creator.

She also implanted the knowledge of how to make the first noodle strand, thus changing human history forever.

Foolishness.

If you disagree, make sure to explain why this statement is false as well. Lets see anyone but the FSM account for it:
Love of pasta is absolute!

Two words: Atkin's diet. That must really upset the FSM. Too bad she is so foolish as to never have revealed her word, unlike the Living God.

[Experiential relevance] looks suspicious and vague, what does it mean to you?

Of the three, this one may be the hardest to precisely define. Basically it means that a particular worldview is relevant to my life and accomodates for the varieties of experiences that are common to all people. For instance, I used to work in the surgery department at a local medical center. From time to time, a very badly wounded patient would be rushed to us in the hopes that we could save them. Everyone is frantic to help this person, to save their life. When we are successful, everyone is glad. When we aren't, people are mopey. They're sad that someone died. Our emotions testify that life is valuable and that each individual life is worth fighting for. Any worldview, therefore, that does not account for the value of human life is experientially irrelevant and fails as a world-view.

SS

 

[Zimfan]

Average
Retards
Homeschoolers
Creationists
Homeschooled Creationists
Skeptic
Squeaky
Letsargue

:thumb: I think that we've got the official list now!

 

[koban]

Dare I say the "B" word? :noid:

 

[mighty_duck]

m_d,
It's good that we agree that the Bible is falsifiable. I won't go down the road of arguing point for point on these things. I'll only say that they aren't logically precluded from being true and I have yet to encounter irrefutable evidence which plainly falsifies them. I wrote to ThePhy concerning why this is my default position in this post. In a nutshell, Jesus Christ answers the central questions of existence in such a way as to authoritatively authenticate His answers to the peripheral questions of existence. On this basis, we "presuppose the truth of all of these" until they are falsified. And as far as what is sufficient grounds for falsification when the evidences are shaky, see the link I provided above.

I'll read up there when I have more time. But from what I understand from you, God in general seems to answer a lot of things, so you have given him a blank check that everything in the Bible is also true.
There's no such thing as irrefutable evidence, but all of science agrees to these points, most of what is written in Genesis is falsified. But that blank check precludes you from ever falsifying anything.

Why isn't biblical confirmation credible?

Because the Bible is an interested party. It is trying to spread christianity, therefore its integrity is at question. That is why we like multiple confirmations for things, preferably from unbiased sources.

Spell it out.

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

As I said before, the problem of evil proves God's existence. Of those who died in the tsunami, those who were innocent went to be with Him, a far better fate.

That is one sick diety you have there. But let me get this straight:
If your child is dying from cancer and you pray for a miracle:
1. If he is miraculously healed, it is proof of god.
2. If he dies, it is also proof of god.

Do you see what I mean by unfalsifiable?

2+2=5 If God exists, this could not happen. And it doesn't, and it never will.

This is just a symbolic language. There is no real world 2. I asked for a real world example.
If you claim that because four apples are still four apples, that is proof of God, then He has no predictive power.

I'm sure this'll go unnoticed--again--but I'll repeat for the sake of the audience (if there is any audience.) On this basis your FSM cannot account for the observed objective morality that this present in existence. Therefore she is falsfied.

And if you disagree that objective morality exists on the basis that cultures don't agree, do this simple experiment. Enter the house of the leader of the culture and brutally slay his children. What do you think will be the universal reaction? Or steal from him, or bear false witness against him. Moral beliefs aren't found in actions, but in reactions. Children have an especially keen sense of what is fair. This is a testimony to the loving justice of the true Living God, the Creator.

A. Since the FSM created morality, she can easily account for it.
B. The same behavior can be observed in animals. Try to take some meat from a wolf pack, or harm a bear's cub, they will react the same way. So either the animals are moral, or man's behavior can be better explained by instinct and evolution
C. Many cultures would sacrifice innocents. Slavery is seen as one of the worst evils ever, but was once very accpetable, even in the eyes of you God. Morality is relative, get used to it.

Foolishness.

Try to disprove it then. And again, foolish is not a response. Most of your religion sounds foolish to those who don't believe.

Of the three, this one may be the hardest to precisely define. Basically it means that a particular worldview is relevant to my life and accomodates for the varieties of experiences that are common to all people. For instance, I used to work in the surgery department at a local medical center. From time to time, a very badly wounded patient would be rushed to us in the hopes that we could save them. Everyone is frantic to help this person, to save their life. When we are successful, everyone is glad. When we aren't, people are mopey. They're sad that someone died. Our emotions testify that life is valuable and that each individual life is worth fighting for. Any worldview, therefore, that does not account for the value of human life is experientially irrelevant and fails as a world-view.

This sounds like we should choose the ones that give us the best explanitory power for the world, and our experience.

The problem with this approach, is that we can't distinguish between good explanations and bad explanations, as long as they offer any explanation. This is why so many Gods have been posited throughout history, and even today.
Axioms become arbitrary. The FSM can account for those feelings just as well as God.

It is my contention that axioms should be self evident, and undeniable. Only the Atheist axioms are accepted universally. From humanity's experience, adding to these axioms has not improved our useful explanatory power.

Regarding the example you stated. Empathy gives a species a distinct survival advantage, so it is explained by evolution as well.

 

[Hilston]

Responses to Posts #76 through #119

Responses to Posts #76 through #119

The following contains replies to various posts by:

• PureX
• aharvey
• mighty_duck
• fool

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."

I agree with you. That is a meaningless tautology.

Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists.

On the contrary, the objective proof of God's existence is everywhere. But your subjective presuppositions preclude your consideration or acceptance of it.

It's just a meaningless tautology based on his own beliefs.

No one can evaluate one's own worldview without begging the question. This is why we must be behind the worldview in order to evaluate it. The only way to do that is to ask the question: Given what we understand (or think we understand) about human experience, what would have to be true in order for our experience to make sense and to be intelligible? The objective proof is seen in the argument of the necessity of God's existence. You can disregard that as objective proof if you choose, but not without sacrificing rationality. The Evolutionist believes in the intelligibility of his experience as axiom, without proof, mythically. So unless you're willing to believe in magic and superstition, everything in your experience, from your cognitive abilities, to your sensory faculties, your very existence are all objective proof of the necessity of God's existence and attributes.

aharvey:

In the context of this Battle Royale (which so far looks to be avoiding the supposed topic altogether), ...

Please see my latest post for my apologetic concerning the topics of discussion in the Battle Royale.

Evolution does not pose a conflict with God, or with a logical God.

Evolution (capital "E") poses a significant conflict with the God of the Bible, the description of Whom is the only coherent and non-self-refuting conception of God possible. Any conception of God that accommodates Evolution is incoherent and self-refuting.

Evolution is a logical concept, indeed, it is an extraordinarily logical concept, to the point of inevitability.

Your paradigm is showing, aharvey. The concept of things changing all by themselves into other things is not only illogical, but it goes against the very principle that proponents of Evolution rely upon (albeit blindly), i.e., the uniformity of nature.

Evolutionary theory does pose a conflict with the specific story told in a specific document (collection of documents, actually).

Interestingly, it happens to tell a "story" so necessary that the rejection of it renders all science, knowledge and human experience meaningless and absurd.

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 possible, indeed pervasive, because people have a proclivity for holding and affirming contradictory opinions and views about their world.

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.

This is inaccurate. Everyone already knows the God of the Bible exists, but most suppress this knowledge. Also, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is not assumed or presupposed. The Book itself attests to this claim and the believer affirms that claim based on personal experience with it. I'm not saying that proves anything or that you have to believe in the Book itself. But it is important to understand the nature of the Creationist position. The Creationist does not arbitrarily decide the Bible is God's Word. The Book makes the claim. The believer reads the Book and concludes, via various means, that it is indeed God's Word.

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.

Please show the circularity. If the Bible is inerrant and complete, as it claims to be, then it follows that everything it says is correct. What is circular about that? If the Magic Eight Ball were inerrant in all it affirms, then it follows that all decisions based on the Magic Eight Ball would be correct decisions. There is no circularity there. Whether it is true or not is a different matter.

Circular reasoning does not necessarily undermine truth, but it is necessarily incapable of establishing or demonstrating said truth.

There is no way around circular reasoning (pun intended). All views involve circularity, especially when it comes to epistemic questions concerning the foundations of what we claim to know. In your case, aharvey, if you deny the existence of the God of the Bible, you not only argue in a circle (which we all do, ultimately), but you must necessarily appeal to a question-begging fallacy. Specifically, you must assume the uniformity of nature, which you would attempt to justify on the basis of the inductive principle. However, you would be begging the very question since the inductive principle relies upon the uniformity of nature. You can claim that it's axiomatic, but that doesn't get you off the merry-go-round; it merely relegates your circularity to magic and superstition.

The Bible may in fact be complete and inerrant, but one can't establish or demonstrate that fact by assuming it in advance.

What? Is that exactly how the process must go, aharvey? It's called starting with a hypothesis. Scientists do this all the time. So do non-scientists. I just did this with the starter on my car. The car wouldn't start. I assumed the starter was bad. I tested the starter. It didn't work. It could have been the ignition. It could have been a relay. It could have been any number of things, but my assumption was correct. So who says "one can't establish or demonstrate [a] fact by assuming it in advance"? Besides, isn't that exactly what Evolutionists do with Evolution? They assume it in advance and then seek to establish or demonstrate it.

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.

Who else's understanding of the Bible would you prefer that I use?

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.

It isn't a theory, aharvey. It is the documented claim of the Bible that you could read for yourself.

To the non-theists the fact that existence follows some rules is a mystery that he has learned to trust, because it has proven itself consistent.

Note the tight question-begging. Non-theists have "learned to trust" the rules of existence, among which are the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. What reason have you given for trusting these rules? "because it has proven itself consistent." Consistent? According to what, aharvey? According to the uniformity of nature! Wasn't it you who complained earlier about tautologies? All you've said here is: Non-theists have learned to trust in the uniformity of nature because nature is uniform. Non-Theists prefer a religious, blind faith commitment to "mysteries" because they refuse to acknowledge the only rational basis for induction and the uniformity of nature, namely the existence and attributes of God.

The same applies to the theist, except that the theist has given this mystery a name, and a mythical story, so that he can "interact" with it as if it were a personage.

On the contrary. God has revealed Himself to man via history, via human experience and via the testimony of the Bible. The theist doesn't just make this stuff up. Despite the effort to try to equate the "mystery of induction" with God, there is no rational comparison that can be made. The assumption of the existence and attributes of God make sense of all of human experience, from the laws of logic to human dignity to moral standards, etc. The assumption of the uniformity of nature, even though there is no rational basis upon which to ground such an assumption, still makes little sense of reality even if granted, let alone giving a rational basis for the intelligibility of human experience. It becomes superstition, magic and myth-making.

Both, however, have come to trust in this mystery because it has proven itself consistent, and neither can explain it.

You're in denial, aharvey, or you're just not paying attention. I'll repeat this again: the Creationist does not view the laws of existence as mysterious at all. They make perfect sense, and they can be explained, given the nature of God's character and attributes. The Creationist does not have to merely "trust in this mystery" based on an egregious logical fallacy (question-begging), as the non-Theist does.

So the differences here are basically irrelevant, except that they tend to cause human beings to view the universe through somewhat different paradigms. ...

You're in denial, aharvey. You want so badly for there to be little difference, but, as you and everyone can now see, the differences are vast, and the implications devastating for the question-begging faith-in-mystery camp (i.e., you, aharvey).

The added idea that viewing the universe through a theist's paradigm is inherently accurate while viewing it through a non-theist's paradigm is inherently inaccurate, is not borne out.

It's not a question of accuracy, aharvey. It is a question of intellectual integrity. The non-theist is guilty of special pleading at best.

Hilston's argument has nothing to do with believing in God per se; it has everything to do with believing in a complete and inerrant Bible.

Belief in God is inseparable from belief in the verity of the Bible. Non- or anti-bibical conceptions of God collapse to absurdity and incoherence, or they undermine human experience. Only the God of the Bible is logically and existentially tenable.

... Cell theory, germ theory, the heliocentric theory, in fact all other scientific theories do not explictly invoke God any more than does evolutionary theory, ...

On the contrary, without invoking God as the foundation of science, all of one's reasoning and scientific inquiry is reduced to absurdity. That's not to say that math stops working or induction stops working for the non-Theist, rather, it is to say that the non-Theist loses any solid footing upon which to use the tools of science. In fact, in order to have success with the tools of science, the non-Theist must presume upon the Theistic paradigm in order to trust and apply those tools.

... What's the difference? None of these other theories deal with topics discussed in that series of documents collectively referred to as the Bible.

On the contrary, no sense could be made of those theories if the Bible were not true. Reject that Bible and all of your reasoning becomes futile and inane.

* Presupposing/assuming a logical God does not falsify a logical theory, nor does it falsify a theory that does not specifically invoke godly intervention.

This isn't my argument. I never deny the verity of logic. What I do deny is the non-Theists ability to cogently justify his use of logic.

Thus, presupposing/assuming a logical God does not falsify evolutionary theory.

Sure it does. For reasons I've already stated.

* Presupposing/assuming a logical God neither falsifies nor corroborates the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible.

It certainly does corroborate the Bible.

* Presupposing/assuming the Biblical account is true does require presupposing/assuming the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life is false.

Not sure where you're getting this stuff, aharvey. Presupposing the Bible does not require presupposing the falsity of Evolution. Rather, presupposing the Bible requires the conclusion that Evolution is false. Also, presupposing the existence and attributes of God requires the conclusion that Evolution is false.

While you're of course free to leave it at this in your personal belief system, it kinda violates first principles in a debate to claim your opponent is wrong because you assume he is wrong!

My opponent is wrong because the core tenets of Evolution are contrary to rationality and human experience, which I have demonstrated repeatedly.

Now perhaps Hilston is way ahead of me, and is next planning to somehow validate his assumptions.

They're not mere assumptions. I've demonstrated above how your view reduces to logical absurdity, namely, your blind trust in the mystery of induction, which you establish by induction.

might_duck:

He did not make his TAG case, only kept on asserting it.

TAG is an assertion, m_d. There's not much to stating it. But there's a lot it implies.

This may be a good thing for stratnerd, who can likewise assert it is false.

He can't do so without question-begging, m_d.

It looks like Jim is waiting for the actual question "Science does not rely on the biblical worldview. prove it!" before he feels justified in presenting his underlying argument.

I've proven it over and over again. The biblical worldview is the only view that can ground logic and mathematics. The Evolutionary view not only admits of the inability to justify its use of logic and math, but relegates them to magical axioms, a "mystery of existence." In the absence of any cogent justification for it use of logic and math, the Evolutionary view presumes upon the Biblical view in order to pretend that it has justification for its use of logic and math.

1. Christian Evolutionists - How predictable. Jim asserts they are all wrong.

It's not merely an assertion, m_d. It is a conclusion based on the testimony of the Bible.

The Bible can only be interpreted as he would like it to be.

The Bible should be read like any other document: In accordance with the rules of grammar, syntax, semantic and figures of speech that the original audience would have understood. This is how historians evaluate all writings of antiquity, and the Bible should be no different. Taking that approach, the message of the Bible is unambiguous.

3. Natural vs Supernatural. 5 senses have nothing to do with our definiton of natural (I've never seen or smelled an atom. Ditto for gravity).

Strange. I would think you would include inference as relying upon our 5 senses.

A more useful term would be to equate natural to "testable, falsifiable". Therefore by definition, science must ignore these "supernatural" factors.

m_d, how have you tested the concept of falsifiability in order to justify your use of that premise? Remember, science must ignore "supernatural" factors, which of course include "axioms" and "mysteries."

Fun fact: There is no such thing as supernatural. Once something is found to exist, it is natural.

Where did you find falsifiability, m_d? In a dumpster, maybe? Stuck under your shoe, perhaps?

4.

The concept of the uniformity of nature needs a rational foundation. It should not be blindly assumed.

So begins the double standard. In an atheist worldview, uniformity of nature (UoN) is an axiom, and requires no rational foundation, in an absolute sense.

That means then, according to Stratnerd's criteria, you have no justification for using UoN. You're not allowed, according to Stratnerd, to invoke explanations or theories or axioms without justification. In the absence of justification, your system is reduced to myth-making, mystery religion, science fiction and magic.

Assuming that one exists is begging the question.

Now you're doing, it, m_d. aharvey seemed to have his record stuck on this and couldn't get past it. Now you're doing it. How does assuming the existence of an explanation beg the question? And if you're willing to make such a bald assertion, how do you get around the egregious special pleading exposed by the fact that every hypothesis posited by every scientist in history has assumed the existence of an explanation in advance? Were they all begging the question?

Another way to say this is that UoN is in the "nature of the universe". We can wrap all our axioms into one universe just as easily as you can into one god.

The difference, m_d, is that the existence of God explains such things as uniformity, law-like entities, moral standards, etc. An impersonal, mindless "nature of the universe" does not and cannot.

Now, can you explain the rational foundation for God? In your worldview, He is an axiom, and needs no foundation.

In my worldview, God is infinite and transcendent. To "explain the rational foundation for God" would be a violation of rationality, which says that the infinite and the transcendent are beyond and transcend all things without exception, which includes "rational explanations."

My claim is that the reason nature is uniform, regular and orderly, and the reason human beings are able to comprehend them, is because the creation reflects and is analogous to the nature of its Creator.

Big fat non sequitur!

It follows perfectly, m_d. Here, have a syllogism:

Major premise: The Creator is logical and orderly in His nature and character.
Minor premise: The Creator created nature analogous to His nature and character.
Conclusion: Nature is therefore logical and orderly.

Given the claims of the premises of the syllogism, the conclusion follows. I realize you do not personally affirm the premises, nor was that my intent. The point is to show the logical congruity if one were to grant the major and minor premises. Thus, your "non sequitur" was non sequitur.

God could have chosen for the world to work in a way that is wholly different than his nature! To deny this, is to deny God's power.

I agree with you. How is this relevant?

This should be rammed to the ground quickly, as it is the basis for Jim's entire claim that God is the Christian God, and not a Deist god or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Please elaborate.

5. HQ2b. I would be very careful here. They are as certain as the axioms they are built upon. The same can be said of Jim's worldview. I am as justifiably certain of these, as you are with your God in your worldview.

How do you know this?

If judging Jim's worldview externally - IE assuming Stratnerd's Worldview and axioms, then Jim's is irrational!

First, according to Stratnerd's own criterion, he must justify his so-called axioms before he can say word one about my worldview.

Likewise any other worldview is Irrational because of the Impossibility of the Contrary. Therefore the axioms are absolutely true.

Now you're claiming it is impossible for the inductive principle to have justification? Now I've seen it all!

6. HQ3: Jim asks a silly question. Its not that ID can't make a internally justified "if-then" condition. It's that under ID, ALL predictions are justified!

Please give me an example of what you're talking about. I am not an I.D. proponent or advocate, so I need a little help in grasping what you mean. An example would be useful.

8. Makes multiple references to Abiogenesis, which should routinely be ignored for the purposes of this debate.

Why? It seems to me that this is part of the "larger picture" that others are wont to address.

9. HQ7: same question as HQ3, same fallacy. ID predicts that we will find a fossil of an ape with wings, that shoots fire out its backend.

Please elaborate. I don't follow this at all. I've never met or heard of an I.D. devotee who would make such a claim.

0. Creationist studies. Stratnerd could take the time to debunk a couple of these studies, if for nothing else to devalue Jim's assertions. Best case scenario Jim will say "well those studies were wrong, but that doesn't prove you are right". WCS he denies the rebuttal.

You've missed the point entirely.

11. Top down vs Bottom up. Jim essentially rejects the scientific method. I wound pounce on that, as it would mean victory in the debate.

Please explain, m_d. You're being too cryptic, and I'm not that smart.

12. Made this damaging comment

... no other human being can be regarded as the source of absolute knowledge

But where does he think he gets his English Bible from? And why does he think there are so many different translations? Are they all absolutely true?

With all due respect to you, m_d (and I'm not just blowing smoke -- I really do like you and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt), but these statements are embarrassingly ill-informed. No rational Bible-adherent claims the English Bible comprises or is the source of 'absolute knowledge.' The reason there are so many translations is because the English has difficulty conveying the nuanced languages it is trying to translate. I use several translations, and they all manage to get it mostly right. It helps to know the original languages, but it's not essential.

I enjoy your evaluations, m_d. Keep up the good work.

fool:

ID is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

I fully agree. Or should I say, "I foolly agree"?

Quote:
This is an excellent post you've made. It provides a wonderful opportunity to talk about an important point concerning how a resolution of the differences between the Creationist and Evolutionist should be addressed.

Why do we need to resolve only those two?

Because these are the two that are competing in this debate. Others are not disallowed, but that's another debate.

It seems to me the investigator would do himself a grave diservice by only examining two theories.

What an interesting comment. Note that your statement implies neutrality on the part of the investigator, when the fact is, no one is neutral. The investigator in your scenario has a view and he must pit it against competing views, whether he does it one at a time or multi-tasks. He still has his own view and he thinks it is right.

I would agree with you if there were such a thing as "brute facts," i.e. uninterpreted data.

So are you saying there is no correct answer?

No, you seem to be assuming that only "brute facts" are "correct facts." All facts are interpreted. Some are interpreted correctly; some incorrectly. The correct interpretation of facts come from the fear of the Lord, thinking God's thoughts after Him, assessing all things, all reality, all truth claims, according to God's standards and judgment and authority.

The problem is, a worldview -- that is, a system of thought by which one regiments his reasoning and tries to make sense of the world -- is necessary to meaningfully make or comprehend any statement whatsoever. To say that "a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor" is NOT the same as saying "a statement can be comprehended or affirmed APART from a worldview." That is, apart from a working paradigm, even a true statement would be meaningless. While a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that statement can only be meaningful and make sense within a worldview, the Creationist/Theistic worldview in particular.

So you posit that there can be no such thing as an impartial observer?

EXACTLY!

My position is that all true predication makes sense only in terms of the Creationist/Theistic worldview. All other worldviews will fail at this point. Furthermore, any meaning and comprehension attained and held by anti-Creationist/anti-theistic worldviews are in spite of, not because of, their false view. Moreover, any meaning and comprehension that is held by the anti-Creationist/anti-Theist comes from tacitly and unwittingly borrowing the tools of the Creationist/Theist paradigm, even while attempting to discredit and debunk Creationist/Theist claims.

I'm still unclear on how you support the notion that Bible believers own the factory when it come to logic.

Not individuals; not a collective of believers; but rather God Himself. He owns the tools and provides a rational foundation for their use. That rational foundation is the acknowledgement of His existence and attributes. Those who reject or deny Him also reject the only justification that exists for using the tools and methods of science. Believers are fully capable of using the tools of science incorrectly. But non-Theists, even in their correct use of God's tools, cannot do so justifiably, and thus relegate them to "axiom" and "maxim", which are fancy ways of saying "magic" and "myth."

Thank you for your excellent questions and comments. A delightful post, Eff!

Quantities and selection may vary,
Jim

 

[sentientsynth]

But from what I understand from you, God in general seems to answer a lot of things, so you have given him a blank check that everything in the Bible is also true.

Yeah, in a nutshell. If you're waiting for infinite knowledge on any subject so that you can believe, don't hold your breath.

There's no such thing as irrefutable evidence,

Sure there is. Take two apples. Add two more apples. You've got four apples. Irrefutable.

but all of science agrees ... .

All science ... except creation science.

Because the Bible is an interested party. It is trying to spread christianity, therefore its integrity is at question.

Non-sequitur.

Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Of course, I'm very familiar with this difficulty. This sort of thing is expected with multiple eye-witness sources. If they were perfectly synthesizable you'd yell "Collusion!" and justly so.

If you claim that because four apples are still four apples, that is proof of God, then He has no predictive power.

God's existence predicts that 2 + 2 will always forever and ever equal 4. Apart from God there is no ontological basis for the uniformity of nature.

This sounds like we should choose the ones that give us the best explanitory power for the world, and our experience.

The problem with this approach, is that we can't distinguish between good explanations and bad explanations, as long as they offer any explanation.

This is why experiential relevance is but one of three tests, the other two being logical consistency and emperical adequacy. All three of these must be applied. Very important.

. The FSM can account for those feelings just as well as God.

You realize, of course, that your FSM is approaching the very identity of the Living God. This is because you realize that these attributes are necessary. Eventually, perhaps, you will see that.

It is my contention that axioms should be self evident, and undeniable. Only the Atheist axioms are accepted universally.

It's primary axiom, the inexistence of God, is rejected by most of the people who have ever walked the face of the earth. Don't delude yourself still further.

Empathy gives a species a distinct survival advantage, so it is explained by evolution as well.

Incorrect. Empathy represents sorrow for those who are weaker, who lag behind the evolution of the forefront of the species. On the basis of evolution, we should murder the diseased, the lame, the blind, the retarded, the unintelligent, the elderly, just as Margaret Sanger logically concluded from her wicked atheist axioms decades ago. They are the dead weight of the gene pool, and need to be eliminated. Digging deeper, evolution demands that races in the human species have come about by survival of the fittest. On this basis, we may conclude that there is, in fact, one master race, just as Hitler did.

In order to be logically consistent within the atheistic worldview, we should not only murder those upon whom empathy is shown, but also those who show the empathy.

Your worldview is morally bankrupt, sir. This being so, it fails as a world-view.

SS

 

[Mr Jack]

I'm not referring to "Cogito ergo sum" at all, but the fact that one's inexistence is unverifiable. One must exist because of the impossibility of the contrary.

That is cogito ergo sum.

 

[Mr Jack]

I really wish you guys would keep your terms seperate: you're really talking about Atheism and Evolution are seperate concepts (although I agree with Dawkins that Evolution makes being an intellectually satisfied Atheist possible).

I agree that I wasn't expecting this sort of debate from Hilston. In my opinion, even if Evolutionists were to admit that their assumption of the uniformity of nature is unwarranted, that does mean that Evolution isn't true.

Unwarranted? That's a strong term. I freely admit that I cannot be certain of the uniformity of nature; that I cannot prove the existence of the real world and that I cannot be truly certain of anything. That's just the way things are; Kant showed conclusively that certainity is not logically acheivable. But UoN is hardly an unwarranted assumption: throughout human experience it has proven reliable. Experiments performed in Hong Kong are reliably repeated in London; experiments performed in 1724 are reliably repeated in 2005; continuous records through time (ice core samples, tree rings, mud core samples, etc.) show no discontinuity or mismatch through the time they cover; astronomical observations show a universe that appears to operate in the same way as far as our instruments will reach and every direction. As much as it is possible for us to verify it being so, the Universe does exhibit uniformity of nature.

I believe we need two things taken, if wish to use that term, as axioms: there is a real world; it is as it appears to be. I don't think logic is axiomatic, nor do I consider it primary to inductive reasoning.

 

[sentientsynth]

That is cogito ergo sum.

Not quite, I don't think. Similar but not quite. Cogito ergo sum puts the cart before the horse. The crux of this argument is that it is by definition impossible to verify one's inexistence. My statement that "doubting verifies one's existence" is in fact cogito ergo sum, however, and it is flawed. Thanks for reminding me of this.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

I freely admit that I cannot be certain of the uniformity of nature; that I cannot prove the existence of the real world and that I cannot be truly certain of anything. That's just the way things are; Kant showed conclusively that certainity is not logically acheivable.

This statement fails its own test for truth. Kant was wrong. We can have absolute knowledge. In fact, we must arrive at this conclusion. If I were to say, "I do not know anything," then I would be contradicting myself. Implicit in this statement is "I know that I do not know anything." Therefore I know at least one thing, and my first statement is clearly falsified. One cannot verify one's inability to verify. Simple logic.


SS

 

[koban]

This statement fails its own test for truth. Kant was wrong. We can have absolute knowledge. In fact, we must arrive at this conclusion. If I were to say, "I do not know anything," then I would be contradicting myself. Implicit in this statement is "I know that I do not know anything." Therefore I know at least one thing, and my first statement is clearly falsified. One cannot verify one's inability to verify. Simple logic.


SS

Gee, I wonder why that never occurred to Kant?

 

[sentientsynth]

I think it was Hume that messed up his mind.

 

[Mr Jack]

This statement fails its own test for truth. Kant was wrong. We can have absolute knowledge.

Kant doesn't say "I do not know anything", he says "I cannot be logically certain of anything". These statements are not substitutional, and Kant's does not fail in the way that you specify. Kant leaves open the posibility of certainity, but demonstrates that it must lie outside of logic.

In other words:

Me: I can't be certain of anything.
You: Are you certain?
Me: No.

 

[Mr Jack]

The crux of this argument is that it is by definition impossible to verify one's inexistence.

True, but no-ones been trying to do that. Demonstrating the impossibility of verifying one's inexistence in no way demonstrates one's existence.

 

[sentientsynth]

Well, if you can't be certain that you can't be certain of anything, then how in the world are you certain that certainty is certain?

 

[sentientsynth]

Since you're certain of nothing, I'll take what you have to say with a pinch of salt, as you undermine the very basis for your argument.

 

[Mr Jack]

Since you're certain of nothing, I'll take what you have to say with a pinch of salt, as you undermine the very basis for your argument.

For as long as you use logic, you aren't certain of anything either. You just think you are.

 

[sentientsynth]

Brainwash.

 

[Mr Jack]

Well, if you can't be certain that you can't be certain of anything, then how in the world are you certain that certainty is certain?

Now you're getting it!

 

[aharvey]

Jim,

Please note that some of the things you’re attributing to me were actually said by someone else (I don’t know who off hand, only that they weren’t my words).

But no matter. The bottom line is that you deny presupposing that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant; rather, you conclude with “certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith” that it is those things because it tells you it is those things! But why do you believe so unquestioningly what it tells you? Because you presuppose that it is complete, literal, and inerrant!!!

Now let’s be clear here: if the Bible IS complete, literal, and inerrant, and your personal interpretation of it is likewise complete, literal, and inerrant, then you are completely on the right side of reality and I am not. However, it is simply not logically supportable to claim that the Bible is what it says it is merely because it says so, and that your interpretations are correct merely because you are certain they are.

aharvey:

Please see my latest post for my apologetic concerning the topics of discussion in the Battle Royale.

Will do! I'm sure it has nothing to common with the typical Creationist tactic of attacking evolutionary theory from vantage points as far away as possible from what evolutionary theory actual deals with. You know, things like information theory, the big bang theory, laws of thermodynamics, the origin of life, the ultimate basis for logical thought ...

Evolution (capital "E") poses a significant conflict with the God of the Bible, the description of Whom is the only coherent and non-self-refuting conception of God possible. Any conception of God that accommodates Evolution is incoherent and self-refuting.

Presupposing the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant, you are probably correct. Otherwise, this is just another empty assertion.

Your paradigm is showing, aharvey. The concept of things changing all by themselves into other things is not only illogical, but it goes against the very principle that proponents of Evolution rely upon (albeit blindly), i.e., the uniformity of nature.

See, this is where you would have been well served to do some background research on your supposed topic. You don’t seem to grasp the concept of uniformity very well (it most certainly does not require that things never change!), nor the concept of evolution (where does it say anything about “things changing all by themselves into other things”?), and I’ll bet you don’t have a clue what the logical basis for evolution is (even if you deny that it really has one, don’t you think it would be wise to be familiar with the one that scientists invoke? You know, variation, inheritance, reproductive potential, environmental limitation, differential reproduction, and all that?)

Interestingly, it happens to tell a "story" so necessary that the rejection of it renders all science, knowledge and human experience meaningless and absurd.

Repeating your assertions with increasing shrillness is in no way a substitute for backing them up. I think we've all granted you the point that if you presuppose the Bible to be complete, literal, and inerrant, then all contradictory viewpoints are on first principles incorrect.

It is possible, indeed pervasive, because people have a proclivity for holding and affirming contradictory opinions and views about their world.

This is as true for you as anyone else. It’s merely an empty assertion that it applies only to other people in this context.

This is inaccurate. Everyone already knows the God of the Bible exists, but most suppress this knowledge.

Well, there’s a world-class assertion. How do you know what "everyone already knows"? Let me guess: it follows from your presupposition of the Bible’s completeness, literalness, and inerrancy?

Also, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is not assumed or presupposed. The Book itself attests to this claim and the believer affirms that claim based on personal experience with it.

Can’t make it much clearer than this. You deny presupposing that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant; rather, you conclude with “certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith” that it is those things because it says it is those things! And you affirm this claim by, er, reading it! But why do you believe so unquestioningly what it tells you? Because you presuppose that it is complete, literal, and inerrant!!!

I'm not saying that proves anything or that you have to believe in the Book itself. But it is important to understand the nature of the Creationist position. The Creationist does not arbitrarily decide the Bible is God's Word. The Book makes the claim. The believer reads the Book and concludes, via various means, that it is indeed God's Word.

I agree, it is important that you understand the nature of your own position. The creationist does not arbitrarily decide the Bible is God's Word; rather, the creationist arbitrarily decides that the Bible is telling the truth when it says it’s God’s Word. And pray tell, what are those "various means" by which the believer concludes it is indeed God’s Word? Other than the process of reading God’s Word (and perhaps listening to reinforcement from other people who believe the same way you do)?

Incidentally, I don’t mind that this is completely circular. I’ve never expected human beliefs to be logical. I do mind that you use this illogical position to explicitly attack the logic of everyone who dares disagree with you.

Please show the circularity. If the Bible is inerrant and complete, as it claims to be, then it follows that everything it says is correct. What is circular about that? If the Magic Eight Ball were inerrant in all it affirms, then it follows that all decisions based on the Magic Eight Ball would be correct decisions. There is no circularity there. Whether it is true or not is a different matter.

See above. Can you think of a MORE circular statement than “This document is true because it says it’s true”? Ironically, you are correct that whether the document is true or not is not relevant to questions of circularity. I never said it was. The circularity comes from your assuming it is true because it says it’s true. This is circular logic whether the Bible is true or not.

There is no way around circular reasoning (pun intended). All views involve circularity, especially when it comes to epistemic questions concerning the foundations of what we claim to know.

So let me get this straight: you deny that your reasoning is circular, then you claim that circular reasoning is unavoidable, and you claim that other peoples' views are defective because they are circular?

In your case, aharvey, if you deny the existence of the God of the Bible,

I'm becoming skeptical that you will allow yourself to admit this, but "not presupposing the Bible to be complete, literal, and inerrant" is profoundly different from "denying the existence of the God of the Bible."

you not only argue in a circle (which we all do, ultimately), but you must necessarily appeal to a question-begging fallacy.

Would you mind articulating the difference between begging the question and circular reasoning?

Specifically, you must assume the uniformity of nature, which you would attempt to justify on the basis of the inductive principle. However, you would be begging the very question since the inductive principle relies upon the uniformity of nature. You can claim that it's axiomatic, but that doesn't get you off the merry-go-round; it merely relegates your circularity to magic and superstition.

This is nonsense. If circular reasoning / question-begging is a weakness, then you’re no better off than anyone else here. You keep distinguishing “God” from “God of the Bible,” and yet never once have you done anything but assert that a literal interpretation, make that your literal interpretation, of an inerrant Bible is required for a logical worldview. How does the Bible achieve an even greater importance than God here? That a belief in God that does not come explicitly from that a literal interpretation, make that your literal interpretation, of an inerrant Bible is no better than a belief in no God at all? Because you presuppose that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant.

What? Is that exactly how the process must go, aharvey? It's called starting with a hypothesis. Scientists do this all the time. So do non-scientists. I just did this with the starter on my car. The car wouldn't start. I assumed the starter was bad. I tested the starter. It didn't work. It could have been the ignition. It could have been a relay. It could have been any number of things, but my assumption was correct. So who says "one can't establish or demonstrate [a] fact by assuming it in advance"?

I say so, as do all other scientists, and most non-scientists if they stopped to think about it for half a second. “Starting with a hypothesis” is NOT the same thing as establishing or demonstrating the hypothesis to be correct. You don’t test a hypothesis by assuming it to be true. You don’t test the hypothesis that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant by assuming it to be true, nor by seeing whether it says that it is false. That’s like saying, okay, Jim, I assume that what you’re saying is true; let’s test this by seeing if you say that what you’re saying is false!

Besides, isn't that exactly what Evolutionists do with Evolution? They assume it in advance and then seek to establish or demonstrate it.

I hope by now you see that you misunderstood what I was saying. Assuming and then trying to establish or demonstrate is different from establishing or demonstrating by assuming!

It’s also different from what scientists do, including in research on evolution. The essential premises of evolutionary theory (regarding variation, inheritance, reproductive potential, environmental limitation, and differential reproduction) have been well established by an enormous amount of data (although if you care to dispute the notions that individuals within species are not identical, parents pass on traits to their offspring, all species have the potential to reproduce more than their environment can support, etc., I’d be most interested!). The essential conclusions (namely, that populations change over time, and the longer the time interval the greater the potential change) have also been directly observed and verified many times; again, I doubt you’d care to dispute this. Unfortunately for you, nowhere in this chain of logic do we see the disclaimer that you want to see, such as “populations change over time, and the longer the time interval the greater the potential change up to a certain point beyond which it can longer work.” In the absence of such a barrier, it is therefore a logical conclusion that all the diversity we see today could be generated from a single starting point, given enough time. That leads to a whole series of faslifiable predictions that we do indeed test, concerning patterns of similarity and difference across taxa, past and present biogeographic and geologic distributions, and so on.

Who else's understanding of the Bible would you prefer that I use?

In this and your next seven quotes, I think you’ve mixed me up with someone else.

On the contrary, without invoking God as the foundation of science, all of one's reasoning and scientific inquiry is reduced to absurdity. That's not to say that math stops working or induction stops working for the non-Theist, rather, it is to say that the non-Theist loses any solid footing upon which to use the tools of science. In fact, in order to have success with the tools of science, the non-Theist must presume upon the Theistic paradigm in order to trust and apply those tools.

Okay, now we're back. None of this has anything to do with presupposing that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant! Remember, as you’ve made explicit, you’re not invoking God as the foundation of science, you’re invoking the Bible as the foundation of science.

On the contrary, no sense could be made of those theories if the Bible were not true. Reject that Bible and all of your reasoning becomes futile and inane.

Baseless assertion. Okay, perhaps not “baseless” per se, as it is based on circular logic: I agree with your trivial position that presupposing the Bible to be true and then arguing that it is false would be a case of futile and inane reasoning! No one here is doing that, though.

This isn't my argument. I never deny the verity of logic. What I do deny is the non-Theists ability to cogently justify his use of logic.

Baseless assertion. And irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Sure it does. For reasons I've already stated.

First of all, baseless assertions are not the same as reasons. Second of all, you are demonstrably incorrect: Assuming a logical God does not require teh conclusion that evolutionary theory is false (as you here assert); assuming a complete, literal, and inerrant Bible does. But assuming a logical God does not force the conclusion of a complete, literal, and inerrant Bible, although the converse might be true (i.e., assuming a complete, literal, and inerrant Bible might force the conclusion that a logical God exists). So your logic is unsound here.

It certainly does corroborate the Bible.

Clever change in wording, Jim. It does not corroborate the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible. Furthermore, there is a difference between corroboration and lack of direct contradiction (and here I am for the sake of argument going along with the assumption that the Bible is completely internally consistent).

Not sure where you're getting this stuff, aharvey.

That’s because, ironically, you don’t seem to have a solid grasp of logic.

Presupposing the Bible does not require presupposing the falsity of Evolution. Rather, presupposing the Bible requires the conclusion that Evolution is false.

But if the entire basis for that “conclusion” is the presupposition that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant, then you’re essentially presupposing both, since with respect to the topic at hand (you do remember the topic at hand, don't you?), they are two mutually exclusive representations of historical events.

Also, presupposing the existence and attributes of God requires the conclusion that Evolution is false.

No, you're skipping a step and contradicting yourself, as you've already acknowledged that it is possible to make assumptions about the existence and attributes of God and still accept evolutionary theory (you just believe those presuppositions would be incorrect!). Presupposing the completeness, literalness, and inerrancy of the Bible requires certain conclusions about the existence, attributes, and most importantly, actions of God, which then lead to the conclusion that Evolution is false.

My opponent is wrong because the core tenets of Evolution are contrary to rationality and human experience, which I have demonstrated repeatedly.

Asserting is not the same as demonstrating. All you’ve demonstrated is that one of the predictions of evolutionary theory is in conflict with the presupposition that the Bible is complete, literal, and inerrant. But any first grader could have figured that one out: There are two different stories. At least one, perhaps both, have to be incorrect. Of course if you have certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith that one version is true, then you will automatically have certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith that the other version is false. Whoopdeedoo. And since your certain, sure, unwavering, unshakable faith that that version is true stems entirely from it’s telling you that it’s true…

They're not mere assumptions. I've demonstrated above how your view reduces to logical absurdity, namely, your blind trust in the mystery of induction, which you establish by induction.

There's that conflation between demonstration and assertion again. But you know, I have never once referred to induction. And I have made it clear that I don’t have blind trust in anything, but perhaps you’ve overlooked or haven’t gotten to those posts. After all, you’ve got your hands full in the Battle itself, don’t you?