Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[aharvey]

Hi aharvey,

I'm aware of that. You just happen to be wrong about why that aspect is, not merely missing, but irrelevant.

Gee, I didn't give any reason at all to Just Tom for your refusal to discuss scientific evidence. So you've ridiculed the explanation I gave JT based on a reason I did not give? Putative logician that you are, would you call your claim here a red herring?

It's probably one of two reasons: (1) I've not read your posts 444 or 445, or (2) I was so blown away by the force of your arguments and so absolutely stunned by your questions that I avoided answering the posts, hoping you'd forget all about them.

Yeah, tough call, especially as you carefully pick and choose what you answer from within individual posts. But I doubt the latter, as you've already made it clear that, at least with respect to the topic at hand, your views aren't subject to revision and you're right even when you lose an argument.

This is false. God is not the conclusion, as I stated earlier. He is the major premise.

You may have stated so, but said statements are incorrect. You explicitly reject all notions of God except "God of the Bible." So God certainly doesn't qualify as a major premise in your line of argumentation (which doesn't of course mean that He's not of major importance to you!).

The intelligibility of the Bible depends on God's existence. Understanding and applying the claims of the Bible depend on God's existence.

This is completely at odds with your previously stated definition of presupposition. If you presuppose that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then you need no other presupposition to defend its intelligibility. And you automatically and inevitably end up with, guess who? God of the Bible. So you get the God required to understand and apply Biblical claims without having to presuppose Him. Get it? Presupposing the Bible to be true and inerrant leads you to exactly the God you believe in, but the converse is not true. That is, presupposing God doesn't automatically lead one to the conclusion that the Bible is literal and inerrant. There have been literally billions of people who presuppose God and don't end up with a literal Bible. You can say, as you have, something like "well, they're all wrong!" but, sadly, that's another claim that you need to demonstrate.

Without the existence and attributes of God, you can't prove anything. That is the case I've made without reference to the Bible.

No, you've made the statement, you haven't made the case. This is a non-argument. Perhaps you misunderstand what is involved in "proving" something. To prove the above statement actually requires you to do something other than state it. You know how I keep asking you for a chain of logic? Step by step, how do we inevitably end up at point B from point A. It doesn't require tens of thousands of words, just a few words, the relevant words, in the proper order.

And, furthermore, as I've remarked repeatedly, you explicitly exclude all non-Biblical versions of God, so you're being rather disingenuous here pretending that you made your (nonexistent) case "without reference to the Bible."

This is impossible. If the existence of God is not presupposed, the Bible is incomprehensible.

This is absurd. If you presuppose that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then its comprehensibility is assured (or at least set by your comprehension skills!). And you've got your God as an automatic result. Unless you're changing your concept of presupposition, of course.

You know, I'd really be interested in your responses to the other questions in my posts 444 and 445. It's hardly surprising that you can appear to make a cogent response to every other statement I make in my own chain of argumentation.

Oh, and another question I'll repeat (it may have been in one of my earlier "overlooked" posts): can you tell me what you think the precise difference is between begging the question and circular reasoning? Your argumentation rather critically hinges on begging the question being a fatal logical error and circular reasoning being acceptable, indeed, unavoidable. Which leads me to suspect that, tossed Latin terms aside, you don't quite "get" the relationship between them.

 

[SUTG]

So, does anyone else here play the saxophone?

 

[ThePhy]

From Hilston:

I look at the claims of the Bible. I see that the claims of Evolutionists contradict it. I reject the claims of Evolutionists. If God exists, and if the Bible is God's Word, then I should find the following:

• All claims contradicting God's Word can be shown to be false.

I assumed before this debate started that this would be the core of the debate. The order in which forms of life appeared as listed in the Bible, the reality of Noah’s flood and how it comports with the evidence, and so on.

All claims aligning with God's Word can be shown to be true.

But you chose to throw a wall up against the evidence for or against such claims, and instead argued the philosophy.

These are basic inferences that I draw from the teachings of the Bible. You can object all you want, and that's fine. But in so doing, you prove the Biblical worldview every time you craft a coherent sentence and attempt to bring down conclusions. You engage in the Christian mode of thinking to even make a logical connection, such as you just did when you read this sentence, just now. Right there. You did it again. You're pretending (unwittingly, most likely) to be a Christian every time you think.

No, I won’t get into a silly debate over the circularity of your arguments – that has been done again and again in this thread. Inasmuch as I do not subscribe to your theological views at all, your claims that I am hijacking its tools is as convincing to me as saying that logic and reason and order all arise from the little invisible green goblin under your bed.

If your Christian god is the source of logic and truth, in the 1700 years following Christ’s life He was spectacularly impotent at improving the world. In the couple of hundred years that science has existed as a formal discipline – operating under a naturalistic paradigm – it has made immense technological progress. Progress that is directly traceable to logic and uniformity and so on, with no need to insert God anywhere from the founding concepts to the advances it has given us. You may, and probably will, claim that to do it the gifts of logic from your narrow version of God are to be credited. Yet I still see significant measurable scientific results that that have grown exponentially since God (the supernatural) was invited to wait outside the door. In fact it is becoming more and more obvious that it is you who is trying to usurp the success of science to paint a shallow veneer of credibility on your so-called “God”.

You've missed the point, ThePhy. There are scores and scores of Young Earth Creationist scientists who are showing every day that the Old Earth Evolutionist paradigm is flawed.

Yes, I saw the list of publications and authors that you gave in the debate. Most of the authors are people who have long been active in trying to make science fit YEC ideas. Some of those authors actually have respectable profession credentials, but unfortunately, not in the YEC ideas they argue.

In science, correct ideas, even if initially unpopular, eventually win out. New advances in science are built on the framework of previous ideas, and nature is not going to remake itself to support a new idea that is built on a false premise. Bad science eventually gets exposed as such. In that light, I would invite you to identify a few ideas that arose from the authors you listed, ideas that were supportive of YEC views and in conflict with mainstream science. Which of these revolutionary ideas have ultimately proven themselves as being the correct ones? A number of your authors have been active for decades. Should have some success stories by now.

There are plenty of other people, experts in their respective narrow domains of natural science, that grapple daily with the evidence. Their work can be read and critiqued. Papers and books have been published. Go read them.

I do. Sometimes I think too much. Well, I don’t maintain subscriptions to AIG or ICR publications, after all, even I have some self-respect. I guess I would like you to point out a couple of the ideas you are indicating to me, ideas that have passed the acid test that qualifies them for inclusion with “real” science. I will read the articles, you just tell me where they are.

I'm not one of those people. So isn't it somewhat odd to expect a battle of scientific evidence from someone like me?

Too late, that has become obvious. I could go to a hundred college campuses and tell the faculty and staff at each one that there is to be a debate titled “Evolution – Science of Science Fiction”, and almost every one of them would expect that to be a debate over the evidence. Except for the Philosophy Faculty, they might prefer to do as you chose to do, argue anything but the evidence. But hey, they all flunked out of science classes anyway, that’s why they ended up in the Philosophy department (or Religion department).

By they way, some of the aforementioned scientists have committed career suicide by publishing; and some are still "in the closet." And no wonder. Look at what they're up against: a pervasive collective popular opinion that says scientists (read: Evolutionists) are objective, that they only report the facts, that they can be trusted and that their pursuit of truth is pure and untainted. So when someone who is bold enough to be open about his religious beliefs, how they affect his approach to science and how his research has yielded findings contrary to the popular view of the same evidence, it can be expected that he will be rejected by the "scientific" (Read: Evolutionist) community. When science is defined by who gets published and who wins the grants, we have the inevitable corrupting influence of politics and conflict of interest. .

Ah yes, the ever-popular conspiracy theory. A wonderful tool for every malcontent who finds his ideas don’t make it far in the light of real science. Reminds me of the minor clerk in 1905 who dared to rip the heart out of Newtonian Physics, yet because he clearly published his reasoning and supporting data, somehow his ideas caught the eyes of the physics luminaries of his day, and now form some of the most advanced physics anywhere.

From ThePhy (previously):

Argue philosophy, worldviews, logic systems, intellectual integrity, but for gosh sakes, don’t dare present and evaluate a clearly itemized list of the details of the evidence.

Hilston says:

If you're really interested in those details, there is, of course, the Source of Infinite Knowledge (i.e. Google). There are mountains of discussion to be found. Why should I re-invent the wheel, ThePhy?

I googled, except not for evolutionary evidence, but for types of philosophical argumentation. You certainly did not reinvent the wheel on evolutionary evidence, but you showed no reluctance reinventing the wheel, bearings, axles, and brakes on arguments about philosophy and the sources of knowledge and such. And these lines of philosophical argumentation can be traced to periods even before the Christian era. And you guys still haven’t figured it out.

Pardon me while I go into the lab, purge my mind of philosophical clutter, and start doing something productive. By myself, no fictional dieties need apply.

 

[Chilli]

This is how Wikipedia defines "Begging the Question"... Hilston, you are embarrassing yourself.

An example

"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one Syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:

* Suppose Paul does not lie when he speaks.
* Paul speaks.
* Therefore, Paul is speaking truth.

These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth."

It is important to note that such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a Material fallacy rather than a Logical fallacy by Aristotle.

Formally speaking, the fallacy of Petitio Principii has the following structure. For some proposition p

* p implies q
* suppose p
* therefore, q.

The syntactic presentation of the fallacy is rarely this transparent, as is shown, for example, in the above argument purportedly proving Paul is telling the truth.
[edit]

Variations

In a related sense, the phrase is occasionally used to mean "avoiding the question". Those who use this variation are explaining that the argument lacks a premise, and they have missed the self-circularity of the argument because of it.

Fowler's Modern English Usage classifies begging the question in a somewhat different fashion (for example, in contrast to the meanings from Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary). Fowler states that it is "The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself." This is more commonly known as the Fallacy of many questions.
[edit]

Related Fallacies

Begging the question is related to the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning. The distinction between the two concepts is as follows: Circular Reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (or possibly with more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of arguments and conclusions (a proof or series of proofs), one of the conclusions is presumed by an earlier conclusion. Begging the question can occur within one argument and consequent conclusion. In the strictest sense, Begging the question occurs if and only if the conclusion is implicitly or explicitly a component of an immediate premise. It is usually accepted, though, to use the term begging the question in place of circular argument.

Begging the question is also related to the Fallacy of many questions—a fallacy of technique that results from presenting evidence in support of a conclusion that is less likely to be accepted than merely asserting the conclusion.

A specific form of this is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion which is no more known to be true than the more specific assertion:

* Every intentional act of killing a human being is morally wrong.
* The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being.
* Therefore the death penalty is wrong.

If the first premise is accepted as an axiom within some moral system or code, this reasoning is a cogent argument against the death penalty. If not, it is in fact a weaker argument than a mere assertion that the death penalty is wrong, since the first premise is stronger than the conclusion.

Many people consider the Bible's claim of being the word of God to be an example of circular logic:

* The Bible is the Word of God.
* The Word of God is true.
* Therefore what is said by the Bible is true.
* The Bible says it is the Word of God.
* Therefore the Bible is the Word of God.

Classic.

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to Chilli (1st post) and SUTG ...

Combined reply to Chilli (1st post) and SUTG ...

Chilli

Hi Chilli

First let me say that I haven't read your second post, so if you cover anything in that post that I address or ask about here, please be patient whilst I try to catch up.

You write:

I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was ironically a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that first caused me to wonder whether I was on the right track in believing in a young earth, a tenet which I had never before questioned.

If a magazine is all it took to shake your conception of a young earth, then it could not have been based on anything solid to begin with.

Many of the arguments in the magazine seemed pseudoscientific and had an air of desperation about them. Furthermore, many of the contributors evinced an insular approach and an arrogant attitude, and the combination of these things sowed the first seeds of doubt… this current debate has done nothing to repair my confidence in young-earth creationism.

Chilli, let's assume for the moment that your experience with that magazine were the exact opposite. The young earth proponents had bulletproof science on their side. They were not arrogant or desperate, but absolutely humble, nice, and pleasantly confident in their claims, leaving themselves and their findings wide-open to critical assessment and peer review. Let's further suppose you then showed up here and said:

"I have had very little exposure to actual proponents of evolution, and it was a popular creationist magazine that I have a subscription to that has convinced me that I'm on the right track in believing in a young earth. ... Many of the arguments in the magazine were wonderfully scientific and showed not hint of desperation in their conclusions. Furthermore, many of the contributors seemed to openly welcome opposing views without a bit of arrogance. The combination of these things solidifies my confidence in young-earth creationism.​

If you based your belief in the young-earth model on the above, I would tell you that your view is just as irrational and unjustified as Stratnerd's, aharvey's, SUTG's, mighty_duck's and all the rest. Such a belief, and such a foundation for that belief is tenuous and it's no wonder that you were swayed away from it. You should have been, given those criteria.

I think it was perhaps a mistake to pit a scientist against a non-scientist, because despite Hilston’s assertion that in one sense everybody is a scientist, he clearly is not a scientist in the generally accepted sense of the word. Then again, perhaps this was not a mistake, but an intentional strategy aimed at livening up the debate. Unfortunately, if this was the case, the strategy clearly has not worked.

You're absolutely right. It's probably because I admitted to a lack of scientific credentials in my very first post, which would explain the lack of interest and utter boredom expressed by so many in this discussion. It should come as no surprise that this particular thread has only a scant handful of posts.

I say this because although Hilston conveniently claims he is loath to argue particularities when it comes to scientific evidence for evolution because he believes it will end in nothing but parties futilely lobbing facts and figures back and forth, he is apparently quite happy to do the philosophical equivalent, with the result that the debate and accompanying grandstand thread has effectively ground to a halt about half way through.

I wish I could offer something more entertaining, Chilli. If I were to gauge the success of my discussion and debate by this thread alone, I would probably become depressed and wonder what I've done wrong. But by attempting to stick to a strictly biblical approach in my argumentation (I've blundered quite a bit here and there, but my goal was nonetheless to stay bibilical), I've had the pleasure of receiving an unusual number of private messages and e-mails from TOL regulars, from TOL newbies, from TOL lurkers and from people out of the blue who have expressed gratitude and appreciation for what I've attempted to do. Most gratifying has been the winning of converts to a strictly biblical approach to argumentation. So regardless of what you think, Chilli, the intolerable boredom of this thread has been of at least some benefit to others.

It seems that the greatest hindrance to a fruitful discussion here is that Hilston has already decided he is right, and nothing else will persuade him otherwise.

By the way, it has been said more than once recently that I've "already decided [I am] right." I'd like to request a show of hands: Is anyone involved in this debate arguing from the standpoint: "I haven't decided whether or not I'm right"? Furthermore, I'm very careful (mostly) to state that it is not the Hilstonian view that I'm defending, but the Biblical view according to my understanding of it. That is to say: I know I've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches. I know I've got things wrong about how the Bible applies. And when I find them, I'll correct them. But in the meantime, I will defend the teachings and applications of that Book, as I understand it, the best I can.

Hilston, I find it interesting that throughout so many posts, you have pretty much kept your cool, but you seemed to lose it at the very point where you were finally pinned down by Mighty_Duck and SUTG in posts 541 and 542.

Actually, your psychic skills are slightly off. I've lost my cool in my every post on this thread. Here's what I do: First, I read the posts directed at me (as time allows), then I allow myself to get highly pissed. I then violently get up from my comfy office chair and start breaking things. Once there is no smidge of coolness left in mind or body, I sit down, in a white-hot rage, and answer these posts. For the past month, I've busted nearly everything in my house, I've thrown things, I've kicked my dog, I gave my 7-year-old the finger, I called up and cussed out my Republican congresswoman just for the hallibut, and head-butted the elderly lady next-door. She's so old that she burst into a cloud of dust like an Egyptian mummy. I looked like Tom Cruise in "War Of The Worlds" after his first encounter with the alien incineration ray. Yet, you only single out two posts as "losing my cool"? Please.

Where's my webcam? :madmad:

This is the crux of the issue, and the weakest link in your argument, and you had no recourse but to say things like “what are you talking about?” and resort to belittling M_D and SUTG. I was so relieved when it got to the point where you could no longer possibly pretend to not understand what M_D and others were getting at, and so disappointed by your response, as up until this very post I had held onto the hope that you really were honestly confused.

I, too, am relieved, because from the above paragraph, it sounds as if you understand m_d's and SUTG's arguments. Please explain them to me, because they're doing an awful job.

SUTG

Hi SUTG,

Except that you haven't made the case. This is the part that is still missing. The case is what we want.

You just made a sentence. You made my case for me. If God didn't exist, you couldn't do that. I'm not sure why you're not seeing this (well -- I do have an inkling, but I'd only be speculating).

If the existence of God is necessary for knowledge, or induction, or whatever, then his existence is shown by the existence of knowledge, or induction, or whatever. However, note that this is a conditional statement and a tautology.

Of course it is. You should have known this going in, SUTG. Anything as primary and foundational and transcendent and self-authenticating and ultimate as the existence of God cannot depend on anything else for its existence, attributes, nature or justification lest it become a self-refuting concept. God's existence is not the conclusion; it is the starting point of all predication. Imagine for second, the existence of something that is truly, actually, in the true nature of the case, ultimate. Doesn't logic tell you that this ultimate thing cannot be justified by anything outside of itself lest it no longer be ultimate? God is that ultimacy, and as such, nothing can explain or justify His existence, lest He be no longer ultimate. There is nothing and no one co-ultimate with God.

Making a claim is not the same as making a case. You've made a claim. The proponenets of the FSM have made a claim. How do we decide between them? Substitute any other noun in place of "God" in the above claim, accept the claim as true, and the existence of a proof entails the existence of that which is signified by the noun. Voila! But why accept the claim as true?

I will accept the FSM as true as long as it doesn't contradict itself in any way, including its existence, nature, attributes and self-justification. When you've shown that to be the case, I will then inform you that you're merely espousing the "Unknown God" of Acts 17:22-31, who happens to be the very same one I'm espousing to you. It might go a little bit like this (updated and paraphrased to make it immediately relevant):

22. So Jim stood in the midst of a bunch of non-theist Evolutionists espousing the Flying Spaghetti Monster and said, "Men of non-Theistic Evolutionism, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship (Evolutionism, empiricism, rationalism), I also found an altar with this inscription, `TO THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.' Therefore what you ignorantly worship, this I proclaim to you. 24. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in field laboratories made with hands; 25. nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything like external justification for His own existence, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26. and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27. that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28. for in Him we live and move and have our existence, as even some of your own scientists have said, 'If the principle is unsound, we have no reason to expect the sun to rise to-morrow, to expect bread to be more nourishing than a stone, or to expect that if we throw ourselves off the roof we shall fall.' [Bertrand Russell, On Induction] 29. Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like Evolutionism or empiricism or rationalism, an explanation formed by the imagination, conjecture and thought of man. 30. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31. because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." [With apologies to Paul of Tarsus and Luke, the author of the Acts of the Apostles].​

Thank you both for your posts.

My behind-ness on these posts is growing (not my behind ~ or is it?).

See reverse for details!
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Just a quickie ...

Just a quickie ...

aharvey,

I didn't have time to read your whole post. I read only the first sentence (after my quote).

I had written: I'm aware of that. You just happen to be wrong about why that aspect is, not merely missing, but irrelevant.

You replied:

Gee, I didn't give any reason at all to Just Tom for your refusal to discuss scientific evidence. So you've ridiculed the explanation I gave JT based on a reason I did not give?

This confused me, and actually made me wonder if I'm losing my mind (wouldn't be the first time; will it be the last? Not bloody likely). So I went back and found this:

[T]he questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there, not because evolutionary science is short on mechanisms.(~ aharvey, Yesterday, 09:47 AM)

In my native country, in my native language, when someone says, "the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because ...," what usually follows the word "because" is what we here in the United States call "a reason." I'm not sure where you're from, or the language that is spoken there, but in American parlance, by the standards of language typically understood here, your words indicate a proffered reason for Hilston's "resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence."

I know, I know. You were only joking. Because surely, no self-respecting rational person would make such an egregiously self-immolating blunder unless he were just trying to be funny. So kudos to you, aharvey! :rotfl: That was quite a knee slapper. :LoJo: My friends will get a huge kick out of that one -- they prolly already have, although not for the same reasons I did. My friends have probably made the mistake of thinking you were serious. They'll be disappointed (or delighted, depending) when I tell them you were just trying to be funny.

Putative logician that you are, would you call your claim here a red herring?

My claim? :ha: A red what? :think: Oh man. You're killing me. Your skill at irony is remarkable! Well done! :thumb:

Sodium free,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Yeesh.

Yeesh.

ACK! I just realized that I missed the whole bottom part of SUTG's previous post. Please forgive that oversight (as it gets later and later).

The existence of God is primary and not subject to syllogistic constructs. What does this mean?

It means God is ultimate. You can't subject that which is ultimate to syllogistic treatment without begging the question.

Just that you accept his existence with no reason for doing so?

No, I have no reason not to. The existence and use of reason makes no sense otherwise.

If you claim that you accept his existence because syllogistic constructs depend on his existence, then you have accepted the truth of the proposition "syllogistic constructs depend on god" with no reason for doing so. You certainly haven't shown any reasons for anyone else to do so.

There are no reasons not to. The very word "reason" and its attending meaning make no sense otherwise. If you do not acknowledge God as the foundation of syllogistic constructs, then all predication and knowledge is reduced to absurdity. Posit any number of alternative rationalizations you want, and none will do the job.

Hilston wrote: Without that premise, God's existence, you can't prove anything.

Again, this is the lynchpin. Why would anyone believe this?

Wrong question, SUTG. How can anyone not believe it? Answer: Because they'd rather believe in magic than in a God that holds them accountable for how they think.

Where knowledge "comes from"? I don't know. It is hard enough to even figure out what the question means.

Wow. Thus we see an actual clinical case of what I warned about above. All predication and knowledge is reduced to absurdity.

But what does this matter? I know I can just decide that it must have come from God, or the IPU, or the FSM. Do I just have to choose one and then I am finished?

Yes.

Why is the Christian God the only choice? Why is the contrary impossible?

Because all other conceptions are either fraught with senseless ambiguity or are indefensibly incoherent.

Also, the phrase "laws of logic" is a bit odd. I can't even be sure of what you mean by saying the laws of logic.

It's all seems so absurd, doesn't it?

Here is my generic TAG argument:

It is a given that the universe is intelligible, induction works, knowledge is possible, syllogistic constructs are acceptable, etc.
Only X can provide the necessary preconditions for this.
Therefore X.

If anyone can find X where "Only X can provide the necessary preconditions" is true, they win.

Barring the fact that I reject the foundationalistic "Myth Of The Given", if we grant your major premise for the sake of discussion, you're still stuck with the inescapable Unknown God (Whom you've named "X") scenario I described in my earlier post (re: Acts 17:22ff).

That'll do it for tonight. I'm getting delirious.

Great golfing getaways!
Jim

 

[mighty_duck]

just passing through

just passing through

In my native country, in my native language, when someone says, "the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because ...," what usually follows the word "because" is what we here in the United States call "a reason." I'm not sure where you're from, or the language that is spoken there, but in American parlance, by the standards of language typically understood here, your words indicate a proffered reason for Hilston's "resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence."

Dude, I think the constant barage of anti-Hilston posts has actually caused you to lose your mind.

[QUOTE = aharvey]
Gee, I didn't give any reason at all to Just Tom for your refusal to discuss scientific evidence. So you've ridiculed the explanation I gave JT based on a reason I did not give? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE = aharvey]
[T]he questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there,[/QUOTE]

If you notice after the word "because" it says "Hilston won't go there" . In the Unites States (and various territories), that is slang for "Hilston refuses to discuss it". There is no reason given.

So the "because" is reffering to the reason the topic wasn't discussed in the debate, not why Hilston didn't discuss it.

 

[Hilston]

It's starting to stink: Time to flush

It's starting to stink: Time to flush

I am truly blessed. Not only because I am friggin nocturnal, but because I have the pleasure of interacting with some of most hilarious people on planet earth. Only here would I have not one, but two, people with such a keen and sophisticated level of humor that I have to do double-takes to make sure I'm not missing something.

Mighty_duck points out, as if to catch me on some hapless faux pas, that there is a difference between "the reason [why] the topic wasn't discussed in the debate [by Hilston]" and "[the reason] why Hilston didn't discuss [the topic in the debate]"

At first, I was really baffled by this. After all, it's only 3:50 a.m. EST. Is there a more apropos time to be baffled? I think not.

But suddenly I realized: Mighty_Duck is a talented humorist as well! Boo yeah!

Now I want to try: The reason why mighty_duck misunderstood the difference between "my not discussing something" and "something I did not discuss" is different from the reason for mighty_duck misunderstanding the difference.

Obviously, this is that sort of fish aharvey was talking about. And it's starting to stink. If it's gotten too big, we might have to bust it up so it will flush properly (apologies to Zorak, in reference to the flushing of Mr. Tickles, Thundercleese's goldfish, whom Brak killed while fish-sitting, while Thundercleese was out exploding the hordes of Gar, by overfeeding it with the delicious deliciosity of a three-ham omelette. "It's to die for!" Mr. Tickles indelicately said from the grave -- as a kind of "ghost" fish who visited Brak in the middle of the night).

Tomorrow is the day of the Carnival of Feet!
There'll be feet there and feet, and don't forget the feet!
I'll be there if I'm not somewhere else
At the one and only Carnival of Feet! Yeah!
~Brak's "Carnival of Feet" jingle; same episode as referenced above.​

Jim

 

[Mr Jack]

Hi Hilston,

Please give some examples. I may be missing your point. (It does happen, despite my efforts to make myself look really really smart).

The Creation account provides explanations for the creation of the earth itself, the creation of the stars, the seperation of day and night, the existence of rainbows as well as making various moral points. Evolutionary theory does not cover these issues.

This is naive, Mr Jack. Darwin and his contemporaries knew their society had to be wooed. And of course they're all going to claim to be Christians in the most socially acceptable manner. Atheists and deists understand the danger of broadcasting that label in the public arena, even today.

I find such conspiracy allegations absurd. More strikingly, why is it that empiricists the world over can broadly agree on these issues but no-one but Abrahamic religionists come up with six days?

It's exactly the opposite, Mr Jack. The earth ONLY lines up with creationist notions. Exclusively.

That's simply not so. But since you've already stated you won't debate on evidence, I see little point on writing further on this point.

What is confusing about it? The nomenclature is an attempt to clarify, not confuse.

It's confusing because it changes evolution from being a specific theory to a big collection of different theories, most of which have no relation to Darwin's original works or Natural Selection.

I reject god-of-the-gaps thinking, whether it comes from theists or non-theists.

Then you accept that the lack of decent explanation for the Origin of Life is not a valid criticism of big-E Evolution?

For you, the god isn't Jehovah, but the magic of nature; it isn't "Goddiddit," but "Magicdiddit."

I make no magical claims at all. Naturalism is the exact opposite of magical thinking. I accept, of course, that my conclusion of Ontological Naturalism is a philosophical one and not the only rational conclusion (although I do consider YEC and Biblical Literalism to both be irrational; in that they are directly contradicted by the evidence).

The Bible's claim is that both you AND the god-of-the-gaps theist have NO solid ground to stand upon, NO foundation upon which to build coherent knowledge, if you do not begin with the God of the Bible. To treat God as one of several possible explanations, or a even a plausible conclusion, is contrary to the teaching of the Bible and is an irrational formulation of how we know what we know, of how we learn and of how we reason. I know that last sentence doesn't apply to you, Mr Jack, but my point is to show how uncritical theists are in the same sinking epistemological boat as non-theists.

Yes. Certainity is a logical impossibility (q.v. Kant), but this applies as much to me as to you. There is no solid ground on which to build certain knowledge; but coherance and certainity are entirely seperate concepts and it is entirely possible to have one but not the other. I find your arguments unconvincing not least because I have no interest in claiming certainity; I don't consider logic to be anything more than a human construct that has been pragmatically shown to work, and even then empiricism is a better method of obtaining knowledge (contrast Aristotle and Newton to see my point).

More critically, I see your position as self-contradictory. You argue that your god provides a sure foundation for logic, reason and observation while proving creation along the way but logic, reason and observation combine to demonstrate the utter failure of creation. Investigation using logic, reason and observation has not shown us a world created in six days but one that is 4.5 billion years old and had emerged slowly through the processes we see continuing around us today. Again, of course, since you decline to argue evidence this avenue is closed to us. One avenue that does remain open however is the Kantian self-contradiction. Since Kant uses logic to demonstrate the logical impossibility of certainity, but you argue for certainity in the value of logic through the use of logic you've inevitably contradicted yourself.

 

[aharvey]

aharvey,

I didn't have time to read your whole post. I read only the first sentence (after my quote).

I had written: I'm aware of that. You just happen to be wrong about why that aspect is, not merely missing, but irrelevant.

You replied: This confused me, and actually made me wonder if I'm losing my mind (wouldn't be the first time; will it be the last? Not bloody likely). So I went back and found this:

In my native country, in my native language, when someone says, "the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because ...," what usually follows the word "because" is what we here in the United States call "a reason." I'm not sure where you're from, or the language that is spoken there, but in American parlance, by the standards of language typically understood here, your words indicate a proffered reason for Hilston's "resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence."

I know, I know. You were only joking. Because surely, no self-respecting rational person would make such an egregiously self-immolating blunder unless he were just trying to be funny. So kudos to you, aharvey! :rotfl: That was quite a knee slapper. :LoJo: My friends will get a huge kick out of that one -- they prolly already have, although not for the same reasons I did. My friends have probably made the mistake of thinking you were serious. They'll be disappointed (or delighted, depending) when I tell them you were just trying to be funny.

My claim? :ha: A red what? :think: Oh man. You're killing me. Your skill at irony is remarkable! Well done! :thumb:

Sodium free,
Jim

Okay, Jim, here’s the problem with being absolutely, unwaveringly, unshakably certain of your views. It makes you careless. Lacing that carelessness with sarcasm can only backfire on you.

See, you’re erroneously equating observation with explanation of observation (yet another pair of basic concepts you’ve botched). “[T]he questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there” is an observation.Your "resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence" refers to the exact same observation! “Won’t go there” means the same thing as“refuse to discuss it,” wouldn’t you say? Does the following sentence really make any sense to you? “Jim refuses to discuss it because he won’t go there.” Hmm, upon reflect this is rather similar to some of your own claims! Hopefully everyone else realizes the problem, at least!

You refuse to discuss questions that involve actual evidence.Questions that involve actual evidence are not discussed because you won’t go there. Those are the exact same observation. Elsewhere you yourself provided the “explanation,” such as it is, for this observed decision of yours; not me, not in any of the posts you’re rather foolishly poking fun at.

So is this attempt of yours to cloud the issue what you would call a red herring?

 

[Highline]

I've had enough of this for sometime. I think it is more interesting to talk about the evidence, but I can see how others might be interested in this. I wanted to thank the debaters for their time and effort. I look forward to futre Battle Royales.

 

[Hilston]

Bust it up; flush it ...

Bust it up; flush it ...

Hi aharvey,

You should have stuck with the humor interpretation I offered. Because now this all just starting to look (and smell) ridiculous.

Response to aharvey's post #444

Originally Posted by Hilston:

Thanks for your comments. Here is my chain of reasoning:

• God created the universe in accordance with His own character (orderly, logical).
• God created humans in His image (rational, perceptive, personal, spiritual).
• Therefore:
  1. Humans are able to rationally perceive and comprehend certain aspects of creation.
  2. Humans can rely upon the tools and methods of science to give them generally reliable data about certain aspects of creation.

aharvey replies:

So where exactly is the "Evolution is not science" conclusion logically derived here?

In the above, on one of two levels: All who presume to do science in opposition to the Creationist view, which proponents of Evolution do, do so without warrant, without a foundation, without justifcation, and thereby reduce all reasoning, science and knowledge to absurdity. On the other level, which is not directly addressed by the 'chain' above, Evolution, as a philosophical vision, unscientifically extends its claims beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Hilston: We have to be careful not to confuse the supernatural (or extra-natural) itself from the application or effects of the extranatural. We all use the extranatural laws of logic and mathematics in our daily experience. But no one experiences the actual laws themselves. Laws are not experienced; they are themselves transcendental in character. No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses. They are conceptual in nature and as such are not experienced by human beings. However, we see their applications and effects all the time, and these must not be confused. So, no, aharvey, there is no "embarrassing over-reliance" on a "hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural." It corresponds exactly to the definition you offered, which I encourage the use of in any future dialogue on this subject.

See, here’s where one gets the impression that you’re doing everything you can to obsfuscate the issues. Defining all abstract concepts as being supernatural fits neither the dictionary definition nor the generally understood conception of the term; instead it trivializes the term.

I'm not making this stuff up, aharvey. I'm applying Creationist thought to this discussion and I'm telling you what the Creationist view teaches and implies. It is not obfuscation. It is clarification. Let me know what is unclear to you (and seemingly obfuscatory) and I will try to clear it up for you.

I confess to being a bit stunned that you are so comfy equating “rational” with “correct.” But rather than dwell on the incorrectness (irrationality?) of that position, ...

It is incorrect and irrational to equate rational with correct? Awesome! It's like a gift from the gods!

... let me simply observe that such a view seems to equate “Is evolution science?” with “is evolution correct?,” something you explicitly argued against at the beginning.

I don't recall arguing against this. Perhaps you can remind me.

Can one be internally inconsistent and still be rational?

No. Nor can they be correct. I've done irrational things today (and it's still early). I've thought internally inconsistent things today. How is it that I'm able to know when I've been irrational?

Response to aharvey's post #445

Originally Posted by Hilston: You cannot use axiom in place of presupposition. You can't even modify your definition of axiom to fit presupposition unless you do violence to semantics entirely. Presuppositions do need to be proven. Presuppositions do need to be justified. The definition I offered earlier was:

"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]​

Note that your definition refers to "one's" beliefs, "one's" thinking.

Presuppositions are completely personal and individual; they do not transcend that individual, no matter how strongly they are held by that individual. They are the ultimate conditional statement. You simply cannot use a presupposition to draw conclusions that are relevant to anyone that does not hold that same presupposition.

It's a two-phase Biblical approach. First I use other people's presuppositions to show internal incoherency, i.e., expose the fact that they're not consistent with their own espoused presuppositions. And then demonstrate how the Biblical worldview not only answers the insurmountable problems posed by the opposing view, but answers how knowledge and reasoning is possible at all. This strategy is explicity taught in the Bible, and examples are given to reinforce that strategy (Proverbs 26:4,5 Luke 16:19-31).

Originally Posted by Hilston: My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.

]Okay, let’s see if you are willing to provide this chain of logic! But I do need to point out that “God’s existence” is not the presupposition that drives your arguments. You have already, and repeatedly, asserted that presupposing God is not good enough. Normally, though not always, you use the phrase “God of the Bible,” not just “God.” Your presupposition is a literal and inerrant Bible, from which you conclude God exists.

You're wrong here. There is only one God, the God of the Bible. So whenever I say, "The God of the Bible," it is a point of specific description, not an appeal to the Bible as a presupposition. My presupposition of God's existence regards the only God that truly exists. He also happens to have given us His documented words in a book we call the Bible. One cannot presuppose the Bible (or the ability to read for that matter) without the existence of God. God is primary. God is the source and foundation of all predication.

Originally Posted by Hilston: The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.

I’m guessing you’re using the word “proof” in your own unique fashion, but just in case, let me repeat my request that you make explicit the chain of logic that must back up a legitimate proof claim. That is, walk us through the steps that lead from “Theist using math” to “God exists. QED”

As I've explained previously, there can be no "chain of logic" that will conclude God's existence. All chains of logic necessarily begin with God's existence. The very moment you begin to reason, you affirm His existence. It would like requiring someone to prove the existence of air without breathing. If the air didn't exist, he would not be able to breathe. In the very act of breathing, he proves its existence. But it is precisely here that the non-theist says, "But I AM breathing, so that proves I CAN breathe without the existence of air. So THERE!"

How rational do you think it is to demand, as you appear to be, that someone show the rational basis for something but explicitly forbid them from using a rational argument?

This is exactly the point! Not only can the non-theist justify his tools of science, he cannot even justify his use of logic in the very attempt to do so. The non-theist is fraught with wall-to-wall contradictions. It's not that I forbid them from using a rational argument; I'd just like to see them account for their tools. Cornelius Van Til once said (paraphrasing): "We don't deny that atheists can count. They just can't account for their counting."

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Logic would not exist.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

Acausal chance cannot become causal laws. Unless you believe in magic.

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Sentences would not exist.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

Sentences require uniformity and regularity, in syntax and semantic. In a universe that is merely matter in motion, mindless, purposeless, impersonal and "governed" by time, chance and necessity, there can be no uniformity, unless you believe in magic.

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence.

Prove it. You apparently have the proof.

See above re: sentences. Same reasoning obtains.

Kierkegaard was a vowel monger,
Jim

 

[SUTG]

I'd only be speculating

That's never stopped you before. :chuckle:

Anything as primary and foundational and transcendent and self-authenticating and ultimate as the existence of God cannot depend on anything else for its existence, attributes, nature or justification lest it become a self-refuting concept.

Why would it matter if he were self refuting? The concept of being self refuting is a logical construct. If it matters, then he is dependant on the condition of being non-self-refuting. :dizzy:

It is too bad that you can't just assert him into existence! If existence were this type of cheap predicate, we could define all sorts of necessary beings into existence. :dizzy::dizzy:

I will accept the FSM as true as long as it doesn't contradict itself in any way, including its existence, nature, attributes and self-justification.

If the FSM is ultimate, he does not need to meet any of these requirements. :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:

This is why the Argument from Assertion of a Self Authenticating Entity is broken. If all we had to do for something to exist was to assert it as existing, or necessary, we could define an existent square circle.

And since you mentioned Hume again, by way of Russell, I'll ask again how your absolute knowledge does anything at all with respect to induction. In what meaningful sense of the word justified is your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow any more justified than mine?

 

[aharvey]

Hi aharvey,

You should have stuck with the humor interpretation I offered. Because now this all just starting to look (and smell) ridiculous.

Response to aharvey's post #444

Originally Posted by Hilston:

Thanks for your comments. Here is my chain of reasoning:

• God created the universe in accordance with His own character (orderly, logical).
• God created humans in His image (rational, perceptive, personal, spiritual).
• Therefore:
  1. Humans are able to rationally perceive and comprehend certain aspects of creation.
  2. Humans can rely upon the tools and methods of science to give them generally reliable data about certain aspects of creation.

aharvey replies:In the above, on one of two levels: All who presume to do science in opposition to the Creationist view, which proponents of Evolution do, do so without warrant, without a foundation, without justifcation, and thereby reduce all reasoning, science and knowledge to absurdity.

No leaps of logic are allowed in a chain of logic. Nowhere in your “chain of reasoning” do you identify the “Creationist view;” if you in fact consider the whole thing the “Creationist view,” then you need to demonstrate your latest assertions, because there is no necessary logical connection currently present. That is, if “humans can rely upon the tools of science to give them generally reliable data…” (notice the rest of your sentence is either completely irrelevant, or completely unjustified), then either proponents of Evolution can rely upon the tools of science to give them generally reliable data or else you’re indicating that proponents of Evolution aren’t human! Nowhere in your chain of reasoning do you demonstrate that the two conclusions only apply when said humans explicitly accept the premises! I’m amused that you’re still clinging to the above as your relevant “chain of reasoning.” There are a bunch of critical unspoken assumptions remaining to be exposed. Actually, you did mention one yourself during the debate: “I would proceed on the assumption that science could not possibly work at all without the power and volition of the Creator sustaining the uniformity of nature and backing the inductive principle.” So in fact it seems that you assume your conclusions!

On the other level, which is not directly addressed by the 'chain' above, Evolution, as a philosophical vision, unscientifically extends its claims beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Yes, but that was a nasty sleight-of-hand you pulled late in the debate (who knew that despite your pejorative comments about relying on “magic” you’d actually be a proponent?): I doubt even the most hardened “evolutionist” would contest the point that a “philosophical vision” does not constitute science! So which logical fallacy are you engaging in here?

Originally Posted by Hilston: We have to be careful not to confuse the supernatural (or extra-natural) itself from the application or effects of the extranatural. We all use the extranatural laws of logic and mathematics in our daily experience. But no one experiences the actual laws themselves. Laws are not experienced; they are themselves transcendental in character. No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses. They are conceptual in nature and as such are not experienced by human beings. However, we see their applications and effects all the time, and these must not be confused. So, no, aharvey, there is no "embarrassing over-reliance" on a "hyperexpansive concept of the supernatural." It corresponds exactly to the definition you offered, which I encourage the use of in any future dialogue on this subject.

I'm not making this stuff up, aharvey. I'm applying Creationist thought to this discussion and I'm telling you what the Creationist view teaches and implies. It is not obfuscation. It is clarification. Let me know what is unclear to you (and seemingly obfuscatory) and I will try to clear it up for you.

God is supernatural. 2+2=4 is equally supernatural. What can you gain, besides obfuscation, by including both under the same definition?

It is incorrect and irrational to equate rational with correct? Awesome! It's like a gift from the gods!

Well, besides the misrepresentation of “incorrectness (irrationality?)” as “incorrect and irrational,” I will note that no dictionary or thesaurus that I know of equates the two. I’ll also note that you yourself use the words together (e.g.,“correct and rational”), almost as if you yourself don’t consider them to be the same.

I don't recall arguing against this. Perhaps you can remind me.

Curious. I can’t find an explicit statement by you in the debates themselves. It was a topic of discussion in the grandstands, but perhaps you didn’t chime in there either. Perhaps I was mistaken. In which case, your argument contains several extraneous elements. If you presuppose an inerrant and literal Bible, then evolutionary theory is wrong. Period. Any mention of logic, science, or any of the other stuff contributes nothing to this chain of reasoning. Your presupposition guarantees that particular conclusion. To you, and those who share the presupposition, at least.

No. Nor can they be correct. I've done irrational things today (and it's still early). I've thought internally inconsistent things today. How is it that I'm able to know when I've been irrational?

I'm unconvinced you are!

Response to aharvey's post #445

Originally Posted by Hilston: You cannot use axiom in place of presupposition. You can't even modify your definition of axiom to fit presupposition unless you do violence to semantics entirely. Presuppositions do need to be proven. Presuppositions do need to be justified. The definition I offered earlier was:

"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]​

It's a two-phase Biblical approach. First I use other people's presuppositions to show internal incoherency, i.e., expose the fact that they're not consistent with their own espoused presuppositions.

Pity you haven’t done anything of the sort. You can’t even accurately describe anyone else’s presuppositions, (here’s a useful tip in this context: “Not presupposing God” is different from “Presupposing no God”), so how could you show them to be internally inconsistent?

And then demonstrate how the Biblical worldview not only answers the insurmountable problems posed by the opposing view, but answers how knowledge and reasoning is possible at all. This strategy is explicity taught in the Bible, and examples are given to reinforce that strategy (Proverbs 26:4,5 Luke 16:19-31).

You should learn the difference between "demonstrate" and "assert." Somehow I think the whole begging-the-question vs. circular-reasoning thing is relevant here as well, but you haven't clarified that one yet so I can't be sure.

Originally Posted by Hilston: My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.

You're wrong here. There is only one God, the God of the Bible. So whenever I say, "The God of the Bible," it is a point of specific description, not an appeal to the Bible as a presupposition. My presupposition of God's existence regards the only God that truly exists.

You're not thinking this through. We've already established that you have a single specific version of God that you personally are presupposing (the version you got from the Bible), that you presuppose that the Bible documents the one true God. Thus, your presupposition automatically excludes all other versions of God that do not hew exactly to the Biblical interpretation. Your inability to start with a God presupposition without simultaneously presupposing an inerrant Bible is the problem. I'm afraid it's just a matter of logic. If you presuppose the Bible, you therefore automatically conclude God. You cannot conclude anything about the Bible by presupposing God unless your very definition of God is derived from the Bible, in which case you've done nothing more than define your conclusions.

He also happens to have given us His documented words in a book we call the Bible. One cannot presuppose the Bible (or the ability to read for that matter) without the existence of God.

Sure you can. You can presuppose anything you want. And it doesn't take long before your inerrant Bible leads you straight to your version of God.

God is primary. God is the source and foundation of all predication.

I understand this religious belief. I understand your passion for it. The fact that you're passionate about it does not mean that it has been proven.

Originally Posted by Hilston: The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.

As I've explained previously, there can be no "chain of logic" that will conclude God's existence.

So when you say “Every time the non-Theist use[sic] arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God,” you are referring to some other kind of “proof” that does not require any sort of chain of logic? How much stock are we to put in illogical proofs?

All chains of logic necessarily begin with God's existence. The very moment you begin to reason, you affirm His existence.

I see. The “proof” of God's existence that you mention above requires you to first presuppose His existence!

It would like requiring someone to prove the existence of air without breathing.

Well, see, there’s the thing. Only a very young child, or a special kind of fool, would demand that someone prove the existence of air without breathing.

If the air didn't exist, he would not be able to breathe. In the very act of breathing, he proves its existence.

Sorry, the act of breathing doesn’t “prove the existence of air.” There are lots of ways to prove the existence of air. This ain’t one of them.

But it is precisely here that the non-theist says, "But I AM breathing, so that proves I CAN breathe without the existence of air. So THERE!"

Well, ignoring what a wretched analogy this is, and conceding that I can’t speak for non-theists as a group, but I can speak for professional scientists. We do not make any claim to have proved the non-existence of the supernatural (and I mean that in the non-trivial sense of the word!). You are the only one making proof claims.

This is exactly the point!

Just yesterday my four-year-old daughter came up with a very similar game. The object was to see who could roll their marble farther. The only rule was that I couldn’t roll my marble. She won. At the end of the game, she did say, “Daddy, I’m sorry you lost!” It was very funny, and just what I’d expect from a four-year-old. But I’m surprised that you would consider it a rational way to determine who is the better marble roller!

Not only can the non-theist justify his tools of science, he cannot even justify his use of logic in the very attempt to do so. The non-theist is fraught with wall-to-wall contradictions.

Another word you toss around with abandon: contradiction. You haven’t exactly buried us with actual examples of these contradictions, you know?

It's not that I forbid them from using a rational argument; I'd just like to see them account for their tools.

Operationally, if you reject out of hand any rational argument to the contrary, that is in fact identical with “forbidding” their use of rational arguments. It's like my daughter saying that she didn't forbid me from rolling my marble, it just wouldn't count!

Cornelius Van Til once said (paraphrasing): "We don't deny that atheists can count. They just can't account for their counting."

I’m still waiting for you to explain precisely what you mean by “justify.” Or in this post, “account for.” Because it does seem to me that your “justification” itself may need some justification.

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Logic would not exist.

Acausal chance cannot become causal laws. Unless you believe in magic.

No, I said prove it. This is nothing more than a bald assertion that furthermore has no particular link to the existence of logic. Besides, isn’t logic supernatural anyways? Why would it be subject to processes that govern natural laws?

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Sentences would not exist.

Sentences require uniformity and regularity, in syntax and semantic. In a universe that is merely matter in motion, mindless, purposeless, impersonal and "governed" by time, chance and necessity, there can be no uniformity, unless you believe in magic.

No, I said prove it. This is nothing more than a bald assertion. I'd also say it's also internally contradictory, as your definition of "magic" precludes someone "believing" in it.

At some point I'm sure I'll have to remind you that "prove me wrong!" does not qualify as a proof (that is, the burden of proof is on the one making the proof claim).

Originally Posted by Hilston: [Without the existence of God] Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence.

See above re: sentences. Same reasoning obtains.

See above re: sentences. Same lack of proof obtains.

At some point, you will probably have to address the fact that although you use the same words as scientists and logicians (proof, evidence, assumption, logic, etc.), your meanings are quite different.

 

[Balder]

It is too bad that you can't just assert him into existence! If existence were this type of cheap predicate, we could define all sorts of necessary beings into existence.

It's interesting that we also used to consider it necessary to assert a homonculus in order to explain cognition. A "necessity" demanded by the limitations of our own (then-current) understanding and presuppositions.

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,
In this post I may be going back to things said in earlier posts that I didn't follow up on.
I'm sorry to say that the level of your posts has deteriorated lately, and I'm begining to feel like I'm in Monty Python's argument sketch. Here's hoping you'll get back to yourself. Soon.

Haven't I repeatedly stated that all reasoning is ultimately circular? Haven't I repeatedly explained that there is a difference between circular reasoning, which we all do, and question-begging, which is a logical fallacy?

You keep saying "circular, circular," which no one denies. When asked to show how I've committed a question-begging fallacy, you can't do it.

(From nikzor)
Fallacy: Begging the Question
Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

What aharvey said. Please explain what you think is the difference between question begging and circular reasoning.

I am glad you reject coherentism. I personally don't agree with it either (not saying it is invalid), and this gives us one less idea to have to deal with.

After rereading your opening post in BRIX, it baffles me that you deny being a foundationalist, at least in the broad term.

Finally, regarding faith, while it is often said that faith is believing something despite a lack of evidence, and that faith picks up where reason lets off, in fact it is upon faith that evidence and reason are based. It is my view that faith in the God of the Bible is the necessary foundation of science, logic/reason and mathematics by which evidence can be evaluated.

Lets define "basic beliefs" as a principle that is accepted as true without need for proof.

You base your worldview on "basic beliefs", which need not be proven but are accepted by faith. These "basic beliefs" are non-rational by your own definition.

Basic beliefs are a great way of escaping from circular reasoning. Without them, we would be reduced to radical skepticism, and would cower in the corner and starve to death.

It is worth noting that without these basic beliefs, nothing can be proven.

So far so good?

This sounds exactly like your worldview. Your basic beliefs are "God of the Bible" and "Inerrancy of the Bible". For you, nothing can be proven without God. This is based on your faith in God.

Then you claim that yours are the only possible basic beliefs. If this were true, then you would have won. Let's examine the so called proof for this, that all other worldviews are wrong:

previously written by mighty_duck
[We should] throw your criteria for evaluating a worldview out the window.

On what grounds? My criteria, Biblical assessment of your espoused claims, eviscerates your worldview, m_d.

Of course it does. But it slices both ways: a metaphysical naturalist assesment of your espoused claims, eviscerates your worldview! There are no supernatural beings, and therefore anyone who believes in a supernatural being is an incoherent fool. This is a worthless way of assesing if a worldview is coherent. Only an internal critique can be called rational.

Logic tells us that faith in "magic axioms" is not logical...
Faith in magic axioms do NOT makes sense, no matter how you slice it.

Faith is not logical, sensible, rational etc. This is not a failing of a basic belief system.
Faith in God is equally illogical.

[Your worldview can't account for logic]

Asking to prove a basic belief is not a rational request. Ridiculing another's basic belief as "magic" is equally futile. The reason you can hold on to your basic beliefs is faith, which makes all basic beliefs "magic"

Logic tells us that things cannot become their contradictions

This is actually the right track to disprove a worldview. See if any validly deduced internal conclusion contradicts another conclusion. But the actual objection here is unfounded. You made a lot of assertions to this end, but have not backed anything up.

Without proving that all other sets of basic beliefs are impossible, you can't use your favorite "without God, nothing can be proven".

You were asked several times to provide a chain of logic or syllogism to show how you have made your case. Your objection was that in even asking for that, it is already proven. This demonstrates that you have just assumed your conclusion, rather than actually proving it.

It is important to keep in mind something that I included in my opening post of the BRIX debate: We must not confuse *proof* with *persuasion.* I think you're getting the two confused and it is causing frustration on your end.

When two sides can't even agree on basic issues regarding epistemology or how truth can be determined, what does proof even mean? You can only prove something within a given framework, when certain ground rules are agreed upon. If we mutually accept the basic rules of mathematics, you can prove that (A+B) * (A -B) = A^2 - B^2. I may not be persuaded, but having agreed to the ground rules, I would be irrational.
With no ground rules, all you can do is go for persuasion, or try to establish some mutually accepted ground rules. For instance, we agreed that Coherentism is not a valid way to establish knowledge.
From your posts, it seems that the only ground rules you would accept are those of your own worldview. It then makes perfect sense to you that you have "proven" your case.

Nah. There are plenty of "open questions among philosophers" that are solidly, coherently, irrefragably settled (i.e. not open at all) among Christian sanitation workers, Christian farmers, Christian beauticians, Christian TV repairmen (retired), and (take a breath, are you sitting down?) Christian journalists.

There are plenty of open philosophical questions that are likewise settled by Muslim factory workers, Hindu Ice cream tasters, and Jewish rodeo clowns. Should we take their word for it?

 

[aharvey]

This is a particularly exquisite exchange (I've left out secondary points and added emphases for maximum clarity).

Anything as primary and foundational and transcendent and self-authenticating and ultimate as the existence of God cannot depend on anything else for its existence, attributes, nature or justification lest it become a self-refuting concept.

Why would it matter if he were self refuting? The concept of being self refuting is a logical construct. If it matters, then he is dependant on the condition of being non-self-refuting. :dizzy:

I will accept the FSM as true as long as it doesn't contradict itself in any way, including its existence, nature, attributes and self-justification.

If the FSM is ultimate, he does not need to meet any of these requirements. :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:

This is why the Argument from Assertion of a Self Authenticating Entity is broken. If all we had to do for something to exist was to assert it as existing, or necessary, we could define an existent square circle.

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to aharvey and ThePhy

Combined reply to aharvey and ThePhy

Continuing my reply to aharvey's previous post:

You explicitly reject all notions of God except "God of the Bible." So God certainly doesn't qualify as a major premise in your line of argumentation (which doesn't of course mean that He's not of major importance to you!).

You're mistaken. The whole time I could have used the "God of Creation" or the "God of Israel" or the "God of Abraham," none which require that I assume as prior the existence of Creation or of Israel or of Abraham. These are merely descriptions; qualifiers. I want to be clear that I'm not repudiating the Bible in any way by making this point. I'm rather emphasizing the primacy of God. The fact that this is affirmed in His Word does not affect His singular primacy. Just as the fact that this form of argumentation presented in His Word does not affect His primacy.

Originally Posted by Hilston: The intelligibility of the Bible depends on God's existence. Understanding and applying the claims of the Bible depend on God's existence.

This is completely at odds with your previously stated definition of presupposition. If you presuppose that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then you need no other presupposition to defend its intelligibility.

I'm not defending its intelligibility. I'm explaining its qualities in the only terms that make sense, which should come as no surprise to you. The biblical view is that the ability to think depends on God's existence. Surely one would infer that understanding the Bible (which requires the ability to think) also depends on God's existence.

And you automatically and inevitably end up with, guess who? God of the Bible.

Of course, aharvey. That's because the God of the Bible is the same as, and the only, God that truly exists. The fact that presupposing the true God aligns with the God of the Bible is to be expected. All other conceptions of god do not comport with the actual nature of the case of reality. Reject this God and all reasoning and knowledge become absurd. It is extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim.

So you get the God required to understand and apply Biblical claims without having to presuppose Him. Get it?

You've missed something crucial, aharvey. There is no "getting" anything unless God first exists. There is no "getting" the "God of the Bible"; there is no "bible", there is no "you," if God is not primary.

Presupposing the Bible to be true and inerrant leads you to exactly the God you believe in, but the converse is not true. That is, presupposing God doesn't automatically lead one to the conclusion that the Bible is literal and inerrant.

That is absolutely false. There is only one God, aharvey. There is only one canon of Scripture that He has authored. Acknowledging the true God leads you to the Bible. Believing ina false (i.e. ambiguous, contradictory, incoherent) god leads either to other anti- and extra-biblical writings, or to a distorted interpretation of the Bible (which is quite common).

There have been literally billions of people who presuppose God and don't end up with a literal Bible.

Of course. Those people have created gods in their own image and have either followed false writings, false people or have distorted the Bible to suit their false god paradigms.

You can say, as you have, something like "well, they're all wrong!" but, sadly, that's another claim that you need to demonstrate.

They'll have to either get in line (I might even let them cut in ), or you'll have to take up the mantle to champion their religion.

Originally Posted by Hilston: Without the existence and attributes of God, you can't prove anything. That is the case I've made without reference to the Bible.

No, you've made the statement, you haven't made the case. This is a non-argument. Perhaps you misunderstand what is involved in "proving" something. To prove the above statement actually requires you to do something other than state it.

That's not true. Most proofs are statements.

You know how I keep asking you for a chain of logic? Step by step, how do we inevitably end up at point B from point A. It doesn't require tens of thousands of words, just a few words, the relevant words, in the proper order.

You can't disprove the existence of air while you're breathing it, aharvey. For me to use logic to prove God's existence is to invoke God's existence before I even get started. God transcends logic, and in fact, gives it meaning and intelligibility. Your very question itself proves God's existence. The fact that I understand it proves God's existence. There is no "chain of logic" when we're talking about the very atmosphere of logic (i.e. God). As you read this sentence, God's existence is being screamed at you.

And, furthermore, as I've remarked repeatedly, you explicitly exclude all non-Biblical versions of God, so you're being rather disingenuous here pretending that you made your (nonexistent) case "without reference to the Bible."

All non-Biblical versions of god are incoherent, ambiguous and undermine human experience and reasoning. And those gods do not exist. I exclude them because they do not and cannot exist. The God who does exist happens to have authored a document called The Bible. I don't need to appeal to that Book to demonstrate the primacy of God. But the Book affirms it as well, and it is fitting to show that God's word is consistent with Who He is.

Originally Posted by Hilston: This is impossible. If the existence of God is not presupposed, the Bible is incomprehensible.

This is absurd. If you presuppose that the Bible is literal and inerrant, then its comprehensibility is assured (or at least set by your comprehension skills!). And you've got your God as an automatic result.

Your use of the word absurd is absurd. Why are you not getting this? I could not presuppose the Bible if God didn't exist. I could not know of my own existence if God didn't exist. I would not exist if God didn't exist. Neither would you.

... can you tell me what you think the precise difference is between begging the question and circular reasoning?

Yes. Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism (see Chilli's Wikipedia research provided in an earlier post). Circular reasoning describes all forms of argumentation in that all arguments are ultimately tautological. Moden ponens, syllogisms, etc. are ultimately circular statements, but that does not make them fallacious, as in question-begging.

ThePhy

I assumed before this debate started that this would be the core of the debate. The order in which forms of life appeared as listed in the Bible, the reality of Noah's flood and how it comports with the evidence, and so on. ... But you chose to throw a wall up against the evidence for or against such claims, and instead argued the philosophy.

I didn't throw a wall up. I explained the problems of evidentiary arguments between worldviews. I deal with whatever evidence is thrown at me with perfectly valid preliminary questions regarding the foundational questions of science. I do not assume that a person coming at me with evidence shares my worldview, so I ask questions that will indicate to me whether or not they share my worldview. If I find that they do, we can discuss evidence. If I find that they do not, we then have to discuss the more primary and foundational concern, to wit, our conflicting worldviews.

... your claims that I am hijacking its tools is as convincing to me as saying that logic and reason and order all arise from the little invisible green goblin under your bed.

First of all, it's not my goal to convince you of anything. My aim is to answer your objections rationally and biblically. Second, it is fascinating to me how often non-/anti-theists resort to this sort of blow-off response and never offer their own accounting for logic and reason. Their protests typically amount to: "You might as well believe in the IPU or the FSM or IGG (in this case) to justify your use of logic." Of course, when pressed to explain how the IPU or the FSM or the IGG can account for one's use of logic and reason, they're at a loss, because once they actualy think deeply upon the matter and proffer a response, they start describing an IPU or a FSM that is curiously similar to the God of the Bible.

If your Christian god is the source of logic and truth, in the 1700 years following Christ's life He was spectacularly impotent at improving the world.

It is not God's intent to "improve the world." God repeatedly condemns this world. The Bible describes this world as cursed and subject to the consequences imposed on it by the fall of Adam in the Garden. God's intent is to improve the spiritual lives of His people. Everything that happens around those people are in accordance with His secret decrees, but are inscrutible with regard to His purposes and intentions (Deut 29:29).

In the couple of hundred years that science has existed as a formal discipline - operating under a naturalistic paradigm - it has made immense technological progress. Progress that is directly traceable to logic and uniformity and so on, ...

All of which, without the existence of God and His sustaining power over nature, would be utterly impossible.

... with no need to insert God anywhere from the founding concepts to the advances it has given us.

Statements like this demonstrate how badly you're missing my point. God is not something to be inserted or removed. You forget that you're not debating a God-of-the-Gaps proponent. It's not that God has not been inserted; rather, it is that God cannot be removed. He is there, whether you like it or not. He is holding your brain together, ThePhy.

You may, and probably will, claim that to do it the gifts of logic from your narrow version of God are to be credited. Yet I still see significant measurable scientific results that that have grown exponentially since God (the supernatural) was invited to wait outside the door.

God cannot be asked to wait outside the door. He holds the door together, ThePhy. He holds the outside together and the inside together.

In fact it is becoming more and more obvious that it is you who is trying to usurp the success of science to paint a shallow veneer of credibility on your so-called "God".

On the contrary, the successes of science are in spite of the Godless men who use God's tools without warrant. The success of science is not due to man's cleverness or genius, but rather to the greatness and sufficiency of God's design of man, and the tools God gave him to be used properly to glorify Him. Man is designed in God's image -- even fallen, God-hating men. And the tools of reason and of science and the uniformity of nature reflect the immutable character and essence of God. These together account for the success of science.

... New advances in science are built on the framework of previous ideas, and nature is not going to remake itself to support a new idea that is built on a false premise.

Many so-called "advances" in science are built on the flawed framework of previous erroneous ideas. These may eventually fall off, but not without a tenacious fight from those who are religiously committed to the flawed framework, not until some other God-less explanation is posited. Only then the devotees of that flawed framework will budge.

In that light, I would invite you to identify a few ideas that arose from the authors you listed, ideas that were supportive of YEC views and in conflict with mainstream science. Which of these revolutionary ideas have ultimately proven themselves as being the correct ones? A number of your authors have been active for decades. Should have some success stories by now.

It's irrelevant. There doesn't have to be a single creationist scientist on the planet for your worldview to still be inane and irrational, or for the Creationist view to be true. To answer your invitation and curiosity, I offer the irrelevant example of John Baumgardner. His research in plate tectonics has been sought out by NASA, and he believes in a young earth (<10K) and a global flood. Here's a biographical excerpt:

"Last year, U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory."​

Here is link to his vitae and list of publications:
http://globalflood.org/biography.html

Here are links to details concerning his work:
http://webserv.gsfc.nasa.gov/ESS/insights/vol14/story1.htm
http://webserv.gsfc.nasa.gov/ESS/insights/vol10/drill.htm

Here is a link to those hostile to Baumgardner who would like to see him disappear:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn...7_miracles_in_creationism_out__12_30_1899.asp

I could go to a hundred college campuses and tell the faculty and staff at each one that there is to be a debate titled "Evolution - Science of Science Fiction", and almost every one of them would expect that to be a debate over the evidence.

Of course. They have no concept of conflicting worldviews. They pretend to the autonomy of human reason, as if, in the very formulation of such an assessment of what such a debate should entail, they're not using the reasoning tools given by God and stealing from a worldview that they oppose. It's a collective delusion that the Bible affirms throughout its pages. Amazing that the Bible has such pervasive correspondence to the real world.

Hilston wrote: If you're really interested in those details, there is, of course, the Source of Infinite Knowledge (i.e. Google). There are mountains of discussion to be found. Why should I re-invent the wheel, ThePhy?

I googled, except not for evolutionary evidence, but for types of philosophical argumentation. You certainly did not reinvent the wheel on evolutionary evidence, but you showed no reluctance reinventing the wheel, bearings, axles, and brakes on arguments about philosophy and the sources of knowledge and such.

To my knowledge, Biblical argumentation, what I've attempted here, is rare in most debates, let alone formal ones. What I typically see are the standard theistic classical proofs that have been offered for centuries. I see very infrequent use or application of debate strategy taught in the Bible or the transcendental methodology it employs. That's all I've been trying to offer here.

Pardon me while I go into the lab, purge my mind of philosophical clutter, and start doing something productive. By myself, no fictional dieties need apply.

The self-indicting nature of this proud boast should be exposed. First ThePhy pretends to use his mind and reasoning faculties autonomously, as if God isn't holding his brain together or hasn't given him the ability to reason in the first place. Then, he arrogantly places himself and his work, as an ostensibly objective scientist, above the unproductive clutter of philosophy. What he fails to acknowledge is that his ability to do anything scientific at all comes from the One whom aharvey would like to see disappear. The sentence, "No fictional deities need apply", in its very formulation, affirms the True Deity that aharvey readily lumps amongst the fictional ones. Aharvey wants to go back to the lab and shut the door to the God who holds the door together. He wants to do science using the tools of reason and science that God has established and given to man. He takes for granted the workings of his mind, his ability to make judgments, to assess evidence and to formulate hypotheses, not wanting to have his mind cluttered with the philosophy of why these things are possible if we are nothing but the product of chance, time and matter in motion. I find it fascinating that, of all the professions in the world that come mind, there are two that view themselves as being above bias and truly objective in their pursuit of the 'facts' for the sake of "improving the world": Scientists and journalists.

Scientists and journalists claim they can pursue the facts without the intrusion a Deity. The Bible says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are stored in Christ (Col 2:1-3). No one here, not aharvey, not ThePhy, not anyone involved in this discussion, have offered any cogent reasoning -- indeed, they cannot without fallacious question-begging -- why we should believe them and not the Bible.

Freddy get ready; rock steady ...
Jim

 

[aharvey]

Well, there's loads of fun material here, but nothing really new. Although I will say I enjoyed Jim's distinction of begging the question (a fallacy) and circular reasoning (not), especially as it was preceded by perhaps the ultimate example of begging the question:

For me to use logic to prove God's existence is to invoke God's existence before I even get started.

You've barely started your syllogism before reaching full circularity!

Anyways, I just want to note here that it is impossible to presuppose a false God, by Jim's very definition of presupposition. I could presuppose a god that would be false according to someone else's presuppositions, of course. But to say that you don't just presuppose God, you presuppose the one true God, is setting up a truly false dichotomy. The problem is that you want to take advantage of the formal logic shelter provided by referring to your core beliefs as presuppositions without having to deal with the self-limiting nature of presuppositions. Unfortunately, although several folks have tried pointing this out to you from quite an impressive variety of angles, I haven't yet seen you try to honestly even consider this perspective. I'm sure you'll get extra points for your utter certainty, but it does render discussions pointless after a while!