It appears that our friend Matthew has responded. I have not the time at the moment to provide a detailed rebuttal of everything he has said but I do want to provide a brief response. Unfortunately, there is still no meaningful discussion of the subject at hand: how to account for the laws of logic. Sigh. My responses are in bold.
"Ha! You believe me an atheist? I do not fit your definition of gnosis of the one true faith, of the true son of the all-Father, unchanging and unalterable from now until the end of Ragnarok?"
No-I believe you defined yourself at the onset of the debate by claiming that there was NO EVIDENCE for God. If you suddenly want to change your position, then that's fine.
"A question for YOU: why do not all men agree on God? For if you are to put logic into the crosshairs, it is only fair for you to put its' replacement there as well. Why are there religions that also preach their unity, their righteousness, their indefatigability from now until their end of time, and why YOU are going to hell (or its equivalent) if you do not obey their dictates?"
The Bible claims that man, in his suppression of the truth and rebellion against Almighty God, exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images (i.e. idols)-cf. Rom. 1:21-23. The reason that false religions exist is because man is incurably religious and in their mutiny against the Maker they have gone after false gods. The real question, Matthew, is how do YOU account for the practice of religion? If we are just the products of Darwinian evolution, why are humans religious? Certainly, it is not a trait that aids survival. How do you account for it? I can account for religious worship and why every culture has a mysterium tremendum or sense of the holy. You sir, cannot.
"'Logic exists because God exists'? Logic = God? Are you just defining God into human affairs, like saying 'Nuts exist because God exists. God is nuts.' You can say that ANYTHING exists because 'God' exists, but without a coherent definition of 'God,' you have no logical basis upon which to make your claim. What, in your argument, is 'God'?"
Now you are getting to the heart of the matter. God is the glorious, Triune being as revealed in the Bible. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, immutable, sovereign, merciful, just, holy, benevolent and wise. He created the universe and works all things to the counsel of his will (cf. Eph. 1:11). The reason I say logic exists because God exists is because apart from God there is no reason to believe in something like logic. If the universe is based on randomness and chance, then we have every reason to believe that it would operate APART from scientific laws and apart from logic.
"Is 'God' known by anything other than a text which purports to be the 'Word of God'? Which text is authoritative, and what parts of it?"
God reveals himself through both the book of nature and the book of Scripture. The book of nature reveals that there is a God, that he created everything, and that we owe him thanks (cf. Rom. 1:20-21). This knowledge is not enough to save a man, however, it is only enough to condemn him for all reject it (cf. Rom. 1:18b). While natural revelation tells us there is a God, special revelation tells us who this God is. The Bible is self-authenticating and it is not circular to appeal to that to account for logic, rationality, scientific laws and so forth, because both the Christian and the atheist appeals to an absolute standard. You have missed the debate entirely, Matthew. Your position fails to live up to its own claims as it destroys the very foundation for logic, rationality, scientific laws, etc.
"These can be pretty reductive, so i'll give a non-fallacious example first:
1) Trevor Almy reads the Bible.
2) The Bible says God exists.
3) Trevor Almy believes the Bible.
4) Trevor Almy believes God exists.
Now let's make that something so fallacious that it literally begs the question of how it could possibly be true!
1) The Word of God says that the Word of God is factually true.
2) The Word of God says that God exists. Therefore,
3) God exists.
See the problem with premise 1 up there? Not hard to point out, and again, i'm not a philosopher or logician, but it sounds like you're allowing a freedom of fallacy among yourself and your followers that you do not allow of the "unbelievers," or whatever you call your political enemies. Do you still think it's a good idea having me rant along here to my heart's content?"
Again, you are missing the point entirely. All worldviews are circular in that there is an absolute standard to which one is appealing. The question is how does your absolute hold up against my absolute? Which worldview makes best sense of reality and experience? Does believing in the god of randomness and chance and empircism account for all of human experience? Or does the Christian God better account for reality? That really IS the question, Mr. O'Donnell. And I do wish we could begin discussing it. Oh, and you are welcome to rant for as long as you like... I am really ready to hear you account for the laws of logic...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wait... you require evidence for God to exist before you believe in him? Now who's pooing on faith? I personally think that God can't be known through experiences, evidences, or proofs; to do so would eliminate the need for faith, and thus the need to believe in God. If you can PROVE he exists, no faith is required to "see" God's influence in the world.
Actually, "sir," you are using an argument from authority that is fallacious. "The Bible claims that [blah blah blah]... The reason that FALSE religions exist is because man is incurably (interesting word choice... like an incurable disease?) religious and in their mutiny against the Maker they have gone after false gods" (my emphasis, your grammatical errors).
The Bible is not an authority for anything except itself. The bible is not an authority on other religions, nor is it even an authority on Christianity--the vast majority of the bible is a Jewish text, often wrongfully interpreted by Christians who do not practice the Jewish rituals nor have the Jewish education required to understand the book. False, false, false!
If I were to say that the Constitution is the authority on government, and that every other country must follow American constitutional laws or suffer the consequences, you would think me mad! But because it's a "religious" document, suddenly it sprouts wings and is given clear majority over other religions (including Judaism) that were around earlier and themselves improved on Christianity (to their thinking)? I think not!
Let me clarify something for you, since you obviously have a problem here: neither of these words, "Trinity" or "triune," appears ANYWHERE in either the Old or the New Testament. I DEFY you to find an example of this. Seeing as your very document undercuts your argument, perhaps maybe your dogma is creeping in, your factionalist training?
Nice False Dilemma there, as well! "Either God made everything orderly, or there is no order at all!" Well, there's order, but there's no evidence for God in that order. If you want to BELIEVE that God created such an order, go for it! Rock of our country, the ability to believe anything you want. But if you won't allow anybody else to believe anything else about the universe, say that THEIR god made it, or that NO god made it, then you've got a problem.
I guess I don't have a worldview, since my worldview doesn't appeal to a universal standard. Could it be that it is only YOUR worldview that appeals to such a restrictive and reductive standard? Can you provide any examples as to what possible "standard" i could be following, other than the very random and lucky occurrence of my thoughts at the time? Is that not enough of a worldview for you? I apologize for your disappointment. :)
And again, i DON'T FRICKIN' KNOW how to account for the laws of logic. Unlike you, i choose to withhold judgment on the nature of the universe until such time as more concrete and conclusive evidence sways me in one way or another! Laws of mathematics exist independent of me, represented as laws of gravity, radiation, thermodynamics, electricity, etc. Are you really asking me to morally justify the rising of the sun, or the condensation on my windows in the morning? Sounds pretty stupid to try and map human morals onto non-human events!
As for human morals, yes, there are societal conventions. Slavery was one of them. It still is. Fortunately, some very liberal guilt was responsible for the attempted eradication of slavery here in the west, and so we have less of it than say, Indonesia or India today. And don't forget that YOUR FRICKIN' BIBLE was used to justify slavery, to JUSTIFY THE ENSLAVEMENT OF HUMAN BEINGS, OF CHRISTIANS!!
http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm
Not that i'm an atheist, but this is a good article describing the ways the Bible has been used to justify slavery. Or is it the inerrant word of God? Are we allowed to have slaves by God? Yippee!
But morals are forever bound by their very human roots: flawed, yet uniformly so. If human beings were to "evolve," perhaps our morality would evolve as well, perhaps not. I've seen no evidence pro or con on that front.
So, if you're looking for a justification of the sunrise, go see what your Bible digs up on the subject. I'm sure it has all sorts of comforting feel-good analogies and allegories on the sunrise. Oh... but you don't rely on feel-good thoughts as evidence, do you? Too bad for you!
I have asked you repeatedly to define your terms, Mr. Almy, and still you refuse? Are you unwilling to argue on a level playing field?
1) Give the ontology of God. Is he an omnimax god? Is he in the universe, or outside of it? Is he uniform, or can he change his basic nature? In your definition, you must stipulate exactly why having miracles does not violate the natural uniformity of nature. Either God is unchanging, and his universe is unchanging, or God changes his behaviors to alter the universe (through miracles, especially).
2) What exactly "sustains" the logic of the universe given by God if not God himself? How much of God is in the universe, and how do you arrive at such a number? How do you account for "sin" in a God-created universe, especially if you previously defined God as omnibenevolent? And especially, if God were to change the nature of the universe, how would the nature of logic remain the same? Because if the nature of logic changes, then logic itself would not be logical--the law of noncontradiction would no longer apply, the impossibility of the contrary that you rely upon so frequently would no longer be viable, etc. So, if God changes the universe, he changes logic. Does God change the universe?
3) How does the existence of a presupposed objective morality (the "laws of logic" that you so blather on about) account for the divergent interpretations of the western concept of God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism), not to mention the numerous western and non-western religious faiths that do not include an omnimax god concept? Since there are logical absurdities and impossibilities posed by the divergent interpretations, how can the laws of logic be more logical than the supposedly "inerrant" dicta of the laws' creator? Is the "Word of God" really inerrant, especially in the face of a much more easily analyzed objective morality?
If you cannot answer these questions without logically contradicting yourself, perhaps you have backed the wrong philosophical horse!
Ha! Hypocrisy!
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Morgue/TAG_Stolen_Concept.htm
Your position of Presuppositionalism is NOT based on God, nor even on Christianity. It is based upon supposing! You are actually "supposing" God to be the author of the laws of logic, as opposed to defining the laws of logic. You have not defined them! By then assuming God to be the center of logic, and then denying all other centers of logic, you are denying the right of individuals the ability to perceive the axiomatic nature of logic, that is, the self-evident conclusion. You are denying what you are trying to affirm (the necessity of God in logic), while all the time affirming what you so vehemently deny (the ability to reason without recourse to God)!
Added to this is the fact that no portion of a religious text is logically interdependent with axiomatic thought--namely, that all religious texts are allegories, stories to elucidate a deeper moral not necessarily found in the text (for instance, Jesus murdered by Romans --> salvation for Christians... no logical connection without further explanation). Therefore, you must PRESUPPOSE a logical framework by which to view Christianity's dictates--indeed, an actual framework UNDERNEATH Christianity is required to view the "proper" Presuppositionalist view of Christianity, as opposed to an "improper" view as taken by anyone who disagrees with Presuppositionalism. Not with Christianity, of course--just with the tenets that Presupps decide to abide by.
So YES INDEED, you are a hypocrite. You attempt to pry open others' epistemological frameworks while covering up the fact that you've cherry-picked an epistemological framework of your own, and a really shoddy one at that. I mean, taken as a whole, the Bible is actually contradictory in numerous places, and entirely uncertain morals and metaphors are numerous (Jacob cheats Esau out of his inheritance, and God therefore favors him? God kills 52 children using stampeding bulls for making fun of his prophet's bald head? ad nauseam...).
The only ethical choice you now can make is to apologize for having been so rude to other online thinkers and promise to be more respectful of others in the future!
Post a Comment