Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

[DaveJes1979]

Greetings all,

I just wanted to set forth what I believe to be the most potent argument for the existence of our Triune God. I would like all Christians in here to understand and use this argument. So I would appreciate feedback from anyone at all (Christian or not).

-------------------------------------------------------------

The proof of God's existence lies in the fact that God's existence is the necessary presupposition for all human knowledge. Man, as a limited being, must START their knowledge with God and His revelation in order to know anything at all and interpret the universe at all. God, as the measure of all things, is where our reasoning MUST start.

It is God alone who can and has exhaustively interpreted the universe. Man, in his finitude, has not and cannot. Thus, man's knowledge is entirely dependent upon God's revelation to him in order for us to come into contact with truth.

Without God, there is no possibility for knowledge at all. But man (Christian and non-Christian alike), inevitably has SOME knowledge. From the high-school drop out to the scholar, we all have some knowledge, even if we KNOW that we DON'T KNOW much/anything at all. How can this be?

Because God has revealed Himself to ALL men in nature and in our own selves. We are made in His image, and cannot run away from it. So all men, Christians and non-Christians, know God and thus can reason. But the non-Christian suppresses this knowledge of God in unrighteousness. Thus, while He knows that God exists (and thus has a basis to reason), he denies with his lips our Creator. Of course, he MUST act inconsistently with his worldview in order to live in God's world, and his knowledge will break down as a result.

So when the unbeliever reasons at all - in science, logic, or morality, he is borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview.

The Christian worldview alone can provide a coherent basis for science. Science depends upon the assumption that there is uniformity in nature. Based on this principle, we can form generalized laws based on the particular cases we observe. That is, we can know that what we observe today is a reliable guide to predict what will happen tomorrow. This is called the Law of Induction. This principle of uniformity in nature (and thus induction) is no mere assumption for the Christian. It is a justified tool of rationality. That is because God has made the universe, has ordered it, and continues to meticulously uphold and guide every atom in it. Thus, we have reason to believe in a universe with uniformity, where science is possible.

The atheist has no such worldview to justify induction or science. The atheist must appeal to a universe governed by "randomness," or "chance," or "nothingness." Such worldview principles cannot lay a foundation for order or coherence. The atheist has no reason to believe in a uniform nature, given their worldview assumptions. Thus, the atheist must borrow from the Christian worldview (they know OUR GOD!) in order to do science.

Likewise, Christians can account for a system of morality. That is because God Himself is good, and is the universal standard by which all "goodness" must be measured against. He has also endowed humanity with His image, thus giving intrinsic worth (rights) that cannot be taken away.

The atheist has no such foundational worldview to justify a claim to a system of morality. Under their worldview presuppositions, the universe is raw matter in motion. When 3,000 people in the World Trade Towers are killed, there is no evil going on there, if one follows consistently the atheistic assumptions. An event such as that is simply the scattering of atoms and molecules. It is perhaps the product of evolution. Or simply the unavoidable results of chance and randomness. But there cannot be an image of God in those who died. If the atheist feels outraged at such terrorist acts, they must admit that they are outraged simply because they don't PREFER or LIKE what happened (did Bin Laden LIKE it? Why choose the atheist's "likes" over Bin Laden's "likes"?). They cannot point to any absolute standard of right or wrong has been violated. Thus, no binding, authoritative law has been violated. Simply something the atheist doesn't LIKE - just like I don't like vanilla ice cream.

Thus, the Christian worldview, and our Triune God, must be presupposed. That is, we START all of our reasoning from Him, for He is TRUTH ITSELF. Our worldview establishes the only possible foundations in order to account for and justify human knowledge - whether scientific or moral.

Thus, I have argued the Transcendental Proof for the Existence of God. God exists because He is the necessary precondition for knowing anything at all, for coherently making intelligible the universe around us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that this post has been edifying for all. I hope that you all will give me some feedback on this. Questions, comments ??? Need clarification???? Disputes, perhaps?? I look forward to this thread develping, by God's grace, and for His glory.

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

[DaveJes1979]

Here are some good resources if you want to continue to follow up on understanding the Transcendental Argument.

http://www.straitgate.com

Here you can find Greg Bahnsen's debate with Gordon Stein using the Transcendental Argument. Download it in streaming audio for free!

http://www.cmfnow.com
This website sells 4 different tape sets (I own them all!) of debates that use the T Argument. It also sells "Always Ready", a great little book for an intro to apologetics.

http://www.crta.org
Here are some good articles under the "Apologetics" section to gain greater understanding into this type of apologetics.

Every Thought Captive - Richard Pratt
Good introductory book to apologetics.

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

[Karen M]

Hello DaveJes :)


>>>The proof of God's existence lies in the fact that God's existence is the necessary presupposition for all human knowledge. Man, as a limited being, must START their knowledge with God and His revelation in order to know anything at all and interpret the universe at all. God, as the measure of all things, is where our reasoning MUST start.<<<

Where do you get this idea?


>>>It is God alone who can and has exhaustively interpreted the universe. Man, in his finitude, has not and cannot. Thus, man's knowledge is entirely dependent upon God's revelation to him in order for us to come into contact with truth.<<<

Same question as above?


>>>Without God, there is no possibility for knowledge at all. But man (Christian and non-Christian alike), inevitably has SOME knowledge. From the high-school drop out to the scholar, we all have some knowledge, even if we KNOW that we DON'T KNOW much/anything at all. How can this be?<<<

I don’t understand this paragraph


>>>Because God has revealed Himself to ALL men in nature and in our own selves. We are made in His image, and cannot run away from it. So all men, Christians and non-Christians, know God and thus can reason. But the non-Christian suppresses this knowledge of God in unrighteousness. Thus, while He knows that God exists (and thus has a basis to reason), he denies with his lips our Creator. Of course, he MUST act inconsistently with his worldview in order to live in God's world, and his knowledge will break down as a result.<<<

First of all, why does reason need a basis other than that it is an evolutionary trait? Second of all, what proves that said basis, should reason require one, is a god/gods? Third, what proves that this basis, should it be a god/gods, necessarily must be YOUR God? :)

Also, I find the generalization towards people who do not hold the Christian worldview mildly insulting. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making broad, unsupported statements; you wouldn’t want me generalizing Christians would you? ;)


>>>So when the unbeliever reasons at all - in science, logic, or morality, he is borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview.<<<

Same 3 questions as above.



>>>The Christian worldview alone can provide a coherent basis for science. Science depends upon the assumption that there is uniformity in nature. Based on this principle, we can form generalized laws based on the particular cases we observe. That is, we can know that what we observe today is a reliable guide to predict what will happen tomorrow. This is called the Law of Induction. This principle of uniformity in nature (and thus induction) is no mere assumption for the Christian. It is a justified tool of rationality. That is because God has made the universe, has ordered it, and continues to meticulously uphold and guide every atom in it. Thus, we have reason to believe in a universe with uniformity, where science is possible.<<<

I’m sorry, but I fail to see how a uniform universe proves Christianity?


>>>The atheist has no such worldview to justify induction or science. The atheist must appeal to a universe governed by "randomness," or "chance," or "nothingness."<<<

The atheist appeals to a universe governed by logical forces; for example, gravity.


>>>Such worldview principles cannot lay a foundation for order or coherence. The atheist has no reason to believe in a uniform nature, given their worldview assumptions. Thus, the atheist must borrow from the Christian worldview (they know OUR GOD!) in order to do science.<<<

Explain how a uniform universe somehow contradicts atheism?


>>>Likewise, Christians can account for a system of morality. That is because God Himself is good, and is the universal standard by which all "goodness" must be measured against. He has also endowed humanity with His image, thus giving intrinsic worth (rights) that cannot be taken away.

The atheist has no such foundational worldview to justify a claim to a system of morality.<<<

I contest this statement. A subjective morality does not = no morality.


>>>Under their worldview presuppositions, the universe is raw matter in motion. When 3,000 people in the World Trade Towers are killed, there is no evil going on there, if one follows consistently the atheistic assumptions. An event such as that is simply the scattering of atoms and molecules. It is perhaps the product of evolution. Or simply the unavoidable results of chance and randomness. But there cannot be an image of God in those who died. If the atheist feels outraged at such terrorist acts, they must admit that they are outraged simply because they don't PREFER or LIKE what happened (did Bin Laden LIKE it? Why choose the atheist's "likes" over Bin Laden's "likes"?). They cannot point to any absolute standard of right or wrong has been violated. Thus, no binding, authoritative law has been violated. Simply something the atheist doesn't LIKE - just like I don't like vanilla ice cream.<<<

The atheist feels outraged because he or she would feel that ramming a plane into the twin towers was immoral.


>>>Thus, the Christian worldview, and our Triune God, must be presupposed. That is, we START all of our reasoning from Him, for He is TRUTH ITSELF. Our worldview establishes the only possible foundations in order to account for and justify human knowledge - whether scientific or moral.<<<

First of all, you have failed to prove you need any god/gods for any of said points above. Second of all, you have failed to prove that, should a god be required, that that god is necessarily YOUR God.


>>>Thus, I have argued the Transcendental Proof for the Existence of God. God exists because He is the necessary precondition for knowing anything at all, for coherently making intelligible the universe around us.<<<

Well, it was an interesting try :)


You asked for feedback, so the main thing I found wrong with it is that I didn’t understand parts of your argument. Perhaps if you elaborated a bit more on the upper section we could discuss this a bit more :D


Karen

[DaveJes1979]

Hmmm, I was hoping for a little bit more of a response other than:

----------------------------------------------

Karen: Where do you get this idea?

Dave says: The short answer is that I got it from the Bible. But I take it you asked this question (twice) without reading the whole post first. It is a single argument, and I explain in the body of the argument why I believe this to be the case. That's where the idea is from.

Karen: I don’t understand this paragraph

Dave says: uhh, keep reading.

Karen: First of all, why does reason need a basis other than that it is an evolutionary trait? Second of all, what proves that said basis, should reason require one, is a god/gods? Third, what proves that this basis, should it be a god/gods, necessarily must be YOUR God?

Dave: how does the fact that reason is an "evolutionary trait"
make it a reliable tool for man to come into contact with knowledge? Humans have also "evolved" (supposedly) the ability to be irrational - as experience tells us. Why not let irrationality guide your life? According to the atheist worldview, our "reason" and "thoughts" are really only mental states, the results of raw molecular activity. Why should we trust our thoughts given this worldview?

Secondly, I have showed how that God's existence can account for reason and rationality. No other worldview can. I have addressed specifically atheists, but all worldviews (or false "gods") break down at some point in the scheme. I could just as easily this to a address a Muslim. Thus, He must be the Triune God.

Karen: Also, I find the generalization towards people who do not hold the Christian worldview mildly insulting. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making broad, unsupported statements; you wouldn’t want me generalizing Christians would you?

Dave says: actually, there really are only two groups in the world. Those who worship the true God, and those who don't. Those who do have a basis for rationality and knowledge. All else don't - so my "broad" statements (which ARE supported) are completely justified. If you take away any of the true God's attributes, the system breaks down, leaving one with incoherence. Thus, even false faiths and gods cannot provide the preconditions necessary for human knowledge.

Karen: I’m sorry, but I fail to see how a uniform universe proves Christianity?

Dave says: well, I have presented an argument that hasn't gone answered. I am sorry you "fail to see" it. I made some very plain assertions, which I challenge you to refute.

Karen: The atheist appeals to a universe governed by logical forces; for example, gravity.

Dave says: this begs the question. Why do you assume that such is the case? In a universe governed by thoughtless, meaningless matter, chance, and randomness, I don't see how this provides a basis for logic. Those principles are antithetical to logic. In a universe without God, on what basis do you presuppose there is logic?

Karen: Explain how a uniform universe somehow contradicts atheism?

Dave says: it is not my fault that you are failing to interact with my arguments. I did explain how a uniform universe contradicts atheism. Given atheistic worldview presuppositions, there is no basis to believe that there is such uniformity. Such a presupposition is groundless and arbitrary.

Karen: I contest this statement. A subjective morality does not = no morality.

Dave says: I never said that atheists don't have morality. I am saying that they don't have a foundation for morality. That some atheists embrace forms of morality is PURELY arbitrary. It comes down to "I don't like vanilla ice cream" whenever you try to put your subjective morality to practice.


Karen: The atheist feels outraged because he or she would feel that ramming a plane into the twin towers was immoral.

Dave says: MY POINT EXACTLY! The atheist in fact knows that God exists, and thus borrows from the Christian worldview in order to feel outraged. But given the atheistic worldview, such outrage is arbitrary and unjustified. The atheist feels outraged, but I am challenging WHY that is the case.

Karen: First of all, you have failed to prove you need any god/gods for any of said points above. Second of all, you have failed to prove that, should a god be required, that that god is necessarily YOUR God.

Dave says: I showed how God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. I demonstrated this by showing how the existence of God provides a foundation for science and morality, and how the atheistic worldview cannot. Thus, I have proven my case prima facie, unless you can interact on a more meaningful level than "that doesn't prove anything!" or "where do you get this idea?" or "I don't understand this paragraph".

-------------------------------------------------------------------

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

[JerryLove]

The short answer is that I got it from the Bible. But I take it you asked this question (twice) without reading the whole post first. It is a single argument, and I explain in the body of the argument why I believe this to be the case. That's where the idea is from. Nothing quite so circular as "my view is right because that's my view", and don't change the subject, offer some real support. I did read the post and find it unsubstantiated.

how does the fact that reason is an "evolutionary trait"
make it a reliable tool for man to come into contact with knowledge? Humans have also "evolved" (supposedly) the ability to be irrational - as experience tells us. Why not let irrationality guide your life? According to the atheist worldview, our "reason" and "thoughts" are really only mental states, the results of raw molecular activity. Why should we trust our thoughts given this worldview? It does not, you have failed to show that reason *is* a reliable trait, ergo the rest of the logic is moot. You also have failed to show that your thoughts on a worldview *should* be truested, ergo that statement is moot as well. Perhaps reality is a big computer simulation in which you are all bots.

Secondly, I have showed how that God's existence can account for reason and rationality. No other worldview can. I have addressed specifically atheists, but all worldviews (or false "gods") break down at some point in the scheme. Obviously, you cannot discredit the Muslims, Mormons, or Jews, as they have the same God. nevertheless, you have not shown that God exists nor that it is your god, nor that it is a requirement for reason. You have presented undetailed assertions without support.

well, I have presented an argument that hasn't gone answered. I am sorry you "fail to see" it. I made some very plain assertions, which I challenge you to refute. Reversed burden of proof. Refutation is only neccessairy on a proven assertion.

this begs the question. Why do you assume that such is the case? In a universe governed by thoughtless, meaningless matter, chance, and randomness, I don't see how this provides a basis for logic. Those principles are antithetical to logic. In a universe without God, on what basis do you presuppose there is logic? I'm sorry you "fail to see", that does not change the reality of the situation..

It's too early in the morning, and this farce of an argument is to absurd to continue. Your assertaions you call support are comical, you failure to apply logic is frightening, and your unwillingness to be specific and offer support annoying in the face of your long-windedness.

[Karen M]

Hello again Dave,


>>>Karen: Where do you get this idea?

Dave says: The short answer is that I got it from the Bible. But I take it you asked this question (twice) without reading the whole post first. It is a single argument, and I explain in the body of the argument why I believe this to be the case. That's where the idea is from.<<<

Yes, I did read the entire post before responding and I was asking the question because the assertions you made were not the logical conclusions of the arguement you made in the body of the post.



>>>Karen: I don’t understand this paragraph

Dave says: uhh, keep reading.<<<

It sounded like you were saying that, because we know something, God exists. That made no sense as a meaning for the paragraph so I assumed you were trying to make a different point. On the other hand, I am now getting the drift how baseless your arguements can be, so it was my mistake to assume it was a simply miswording. I appoligize. :)



>>>Dave: how does the fact that reason is an "evolutionary trait" make it a reliable tool for man to come into contact with knowledge?<<<

Why does reason have to be a "reliable tool for man to come into contact with knowledge"? We only assume it is by induction. Also, as a rational being would be more likely to survive than an irrational one and we seem to have come by much knowledge with our reasoning, I assume the induction is true.


>>>Humans have also "evolved" (supposedly) the ability to be irrational - as experience tells us. Why not let irrationality guide your life? According to the atheist worldview, our "reason" and "thoughts" are really only mental states, the results of raw molecular activity. Why should we trust our thoughts given this worldview?<<<

Because we have an evolutionary trait to survive and survival is more likely if you are logical.


>>>Secondly, I have showed how that God's existence can account for reason and rationality. No other worldview can.<<<

Many other worldviews can.


>>>I have addressed specifically atheists, but all worldviews (or false "gods") break down at some point in the scheme. I could just as easily this to a address a Muslim. Thus, He must be the Triune God.<<<

Not only have you not been able to provide evidence that reason came from a god/gods, but you have also provided no evidence whatsoever that, even if you had proven your other assertion, that it would have to be YOUR God.


>>>Dave says: actually, there really are only two groups in the world. Those who worship the true God, and those who don't. Those who do have a basis for rationality and knowledge. All else don't - so my "broad" statements (which ARE supported) are completely justified. If you take away any of the true God's attributes, the system breaks down, leaving one with incoherence. Thus, even false faiths and gods cannot provide the preconditions necessary for human knowledge.<<<

You are generalizing other views within your own view. How would you like me to say that your God can not be the basis of reason because he does not exist?

To anaylize a worldview, the first thing you do is attempt to understand it from the inside; you don't sit there and generalize it from the perspective of your own or of course it will seem false if your view and the other view are mutually contradictory.


>>>Karen: I’m sorry, but I fail to see how a uniform universe proves Christianity?

Dave says: well, I have presented an argument that hasn't gone answered. I am sorry you "fail to see" it. I made some very plain assertions, which I challenge you to refute.<<<

No, you said that the universe is uniform, and therefore atheism is false. I said you needed a bit more explaination than that; you have no explanations for me to refute.

The only other thing in there was the opposite huge jump of, "the universe is uniform, therefore my God did it!"



>>>Dave says: this begs the question. Why do you assume that such is the case? In a universe governed by thoughtless, meaningless matter, chance, and randomness, I don't see how this provides a basis for logic. Those principles are antithetical to logic. In a universe without God, on what basis do you presuppose there is logic?<<<

The universe is not governed by chance and randomness, it is governed by natural forces. These forces were present before the beginning of the universe. As nothing can be asserted about anything before the universe's beginning, we currently do not know where the forces came from and almost any explanation works.


>>>Dave says: it is not my fault that you are failing to interact with my arguments.<<<

It is not my fault your arguements are baseless and provide no material to refute. ;)


>>>I did explain how a uniform universe contradicts atheism. Given atheistic worldview presuppositions, there is no basis to believe that there is such uniformity. Such a presupposition is groundless and arbitrary.<<<

How so?


>>>Dave says: I never said that atheists don't have morality. I am saying that they don't have a foundation for morality. That some atheists embrace forms of morality is PURELY arbitrary. It comes down to "I don't like vanilla ice cream" whenever you try to put your subjective morality to practice.<<<

No offence, but you obviously havn't studied subjective morality.

Subjective morality: The insane proposition that people are rational beings who can govern themselves. :)

One foundation for morality is evolution. More people in closer relationships are more likely to survive. When 6,000 people die it is immoral because it detrements everyone.

Another foundation is logic. There is something called a social contract which is basically an agreement to treat eachother as with respect and fairness because anyone who breaks these rules is in danger of retaliation. Its kind of like saying "I won't hurt you or your family if you don't hurt me or my family."



>>>Dave says: MY POINT EXACTLY! The atheist in fact knows that God exists, and thus borrows from the Christian worldview in order to feel outraged.<<<

Try to cut down the psycological anaylisis again pls. By definition, an atheist does not believe God exists.


>>>But given the atheistic worldview, such outrage is arbitrary and unjustified. The atheist feels outraged, but I am challenging WHY that is the case.<<<

Incorrect. By the atheistic morality, such outrage is quite justified.

Once again, maybe you should actually STUDY subjective morality a bit before you attack it with strawman claims :)


>>>Dave says: I showed how God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. I demonstrated this by showing how the existence of God provides a foundation for science and morality, and how the atheistic worldview cannot.<<<

No you haven't.


>>>Thus, I have proven my case prima facie, unless you can interact on a more meaningful level than "that doesn't prove anything!" or "where do you get this idea?" or "I don't understand this paragraph".<<<

The questions you just described were quite founded as you failed to provide a logical arguement.



If this post seemed a bit harsher than normal, its probably because your ungrounded assertions which you stubbornly refuse to drop as such and back with no evidence whatsoever are getting slightly annoying...

Karen

[MrCrabby]

The atheist appeals to a universe governed by logical forces; for example, gravity.
Where did gravity come from??
Does gravity apply universally, everywhere?

Gravity is not completely absolute.......there has to be something bigger.
By Karen
When 6,000 people die it is immoral because it detrements everyone.
By Dave
(did Bin Laden LIKE it? Why choose the atheist's "likes" over Bin Laden's "likes"?).
Did it detriment Bin Laden and those with him?

Atheist morals are relative.

[Karen M]

Hello GzusPhreek2k :)


>>>Where did gravity come from??
Does gravity apply universally, everywhere?

Gravity is not completely absolute.......there has to be something bigger.<<<

I already adressed this. Gravity was around before the universe began; therefore, we can not know what caused it with current science.



>>>Did it detriment Bin Laden and those with him?<<<

Yes. Now the majority of other countries,including all the superpowers, are hunting them down. Also, I ment everyone within the "group," which in this case was the US and its allies.


>>>Atheist morals are relative.<<<

Some systems of morality can be, yes. So what?


later,

Karen

[MrCrabby]

Hey Karen:)

I already adressed this. Gravity was around before the universe began; therefore, we can not know what caused it with current science.
Okay, question: where is gravity usually found?
Answer: usually planets.
Question: Were there planets around before the universe began?
I think the answer to that one is no.
So, how could gravity exist before there were planets for gravity to exist on?
Also, I ment everyone within the "group," which in this case was the US and its allies.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
Some systems of morality can be, yes. So what?
Well, this bothers me....before, you said that the acts of terrorism were "immoral."
Yet, "good" or "moral" is relative without any absolute or standard to measure it against.

Have a great day,
Mark

[Karen M]

Hello again Mark :)

>>>Okay, question: where is gravity usually found?
Answer: usually planets.
Question: Were there planets around before the universe began?
I think the answer to that one is no.
So, how could gravity exist before there were planets for gravity to exist on?<<<

Gravity is a force that attracts all objects to eachother. It is the energy exerted from gravitons. Gravity existed before the Big Bang; science can not estimate what happened at any time before the Big Bang. I admit I am simi-sceptical about the Big Bang, but as of now, it is the most likely theory science has offered.

On the other hand, if you don't like that one, try this one: cause and effect is also a natural law. If the natural law of cause and effect existed before the universe, it is a good chance gravity did too. I believe it is likely the universe did have a cause, though it is unknown what that cause was.




>>>Well, this bothers me....before, you said that the acts of terrorism were "immoral."<<<

Under my morality, which is subjective but not relative, they are.


>>>Yet, "good" or "moral" is relative without any absolute or standard to measure it against.<<<

Though I usually think evolutionary modivation for self-benefit qualifies as subjective, in this instance you are talking about standards of measure, so it does qualify. Something is "Good" if it helps the acting individual's family, friends, or self, and something is "Bad" if it deterements the individuals family, friends, or self.


I would note, however, that this is my assessment of morality, and there are probably some people that may not agree with this assessment. :)

Karen

[JerryLove]

Okay, question: where is gravity usually found? Gravity is a universal property of matter and is found everywhere. There is no spot (at least within the confines of the universe) without it.

Well, this bothers me....before, you said that the acts of terrorism were "immoral."
Yet, "good" or "moral" is relative without any absolute or standard to measure it against.
Yes, they are relative. That is not a bad thing. Everyone has morals, beliefs in what is right and wrong. The only difference between a theist and a non-theist is that a non-thiest recognizes that *their* morals hold no better a claim to the truth than someone elses.

[Karen M]

I think we need to define relative.

By subjective I mean that each person has their own morals from their point of view, and if that is "relative" then I agree here.

I am argueing against "relative" that claims that all moralities based on society are correct.


For example, Bob in society A believes you should not ritually sacrifice teenagers to the sun God. This is subjective to Bob's point of view.


Society A, in which Bob lives, has a system of ritually sacrificing teenagers to the sun God. This is relative to society A's point of view.


Are these the definitions everyone is using or am I off?

[DaveJes1979]

Well, let me answer my opponents.

----------------------------------------------------

Nothing quite so circular as "my view is right because that's my view", and don't change the subject, offer some real support. I did read the post and find it unsubstantiated.

Dave says: I didn't argue "my view is right because that's my view." I argued that God's existence is the necessary precondition to knowledge. I then showed how God's existence can account for knowledge and rationality, and how the non-Christian worldview cannot. That is substantiation. I am sorry you find it "unsubstantiated." If that were the case, then surely you could have a SUBSTANTIATED rebutal to what I have said and quickly dismantle my case. You haven't offered that.

Jerry: It does not, you have failed to show that reason *is* a reliable trait, ergo the rest of the logic is moot. You also have failed to show that your thoughts on a worldview *should* be truested, ergo that statement is moot as well. Perhaps reality is a big computer simulation in which you are all bots.

Dave says: I have shown how reason is a reliable tool of knowledge because in my worldview, my thoughts are more than just molecules bumping around in my head (atheist/materialist worldview). According to my worldview, I am made in the image of God, and have been revealed some knowledge by the Creator, and endowed with these faculties of reason. I am more than simply molecules, I have a personal Spirit as well.


Jerry: Obviously, you cannot discredit the Muslims, Mormons, or Jews, as they have the same God. nevertheless, you have not shown that God exists nor that it is your god, nor that it is a requirement for reason. You have presented undetailed assertions without support.

Dave says: actually the "gods" of Muslims, Mormons and Jews are false gods, and wicked ones at that. For the Muslim, God is arbitrary (His justice can be thrown out of the window in their scheme of "salvation"). For the Jew - they do not even believe in the Christ that their Scriptures prophesied of. And Mormons are polytheistic. These pictures of God break down real fast.


Jerry: Reversed burden of proof. Refutation is only neccessairy on a proven assertion.

Dave says: I have proved my assertion. I offered a transcendental argument that contained both premises and a conclusion. So my argument stands as true PRIMA FACIE according to the formal laws of debate, unless someone actually offers a rebutal against them. I haven't seen that yet. Why can't atheists answer these questions about the justification of knowledge? I think I know why!

Jerry: I'm sorry you "fail to see", that does not change the reality of the situation..

Dave says: if it was indeed the "reality" of the situation, you could actually rationally defend it instead of simply avoiding the issues I bring up, and giving simple dismissals such as "that doesn't prove anything!"

Jerry: It's too early in the morning, and this farce of an argument is to absurd to continue. Your assertaions you call support are comical, you failure to apply logic is frightening, and your unwillingness to be specific and offer support annoying in the face of your long-windedness.

Dave says: actually, I think that your post is a farce of a rebutal. You really did not rationally, substantively address the issues I brought up pertaining to how our different worldviews account for knowledge. Oh - and if I am SOOO unable to apply logic, then surely cou could TEAR apart my argument. I'm still waiting...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Karen: Yes, I did read the entire post before responding and I was asking the question because the assertions you made were not the logical conclusions of the arguement you made in the body of the post.

Dave says: the body of my post contrasted the theistic/atheistic worldviews and how they relate to two specific areas of knowledge: the law of induction, and morality. From this body follows my conclusion presented at the intro and end of my post.

Karen: On the other hand, I am now getting the drift how baseless your arguements can be, so it was my mistake to assume it was a simply miswording. I appoligize.

Dave says: I am getting to understand how unsubstantiated your "rebutals" are. Your rebutals are only dismissive, not rational.


Karen: Why does reason have to be a "reliable tool for man to come into contact with knowledge"? We only assume it is by induction. Also, as a rational being would be more likely to survive than an irrational one and we seem to have come by much knowledge with our reasoning, I assume the induction is true.

Dave says: the fundamental question I am asking is WHY you assume induction to be a valid logical principle - one by which man can come to truth. You cannot use the principle of induction in order to prove induction. The principle of induction is the result of a more fundamental philisophically worldview, and happens to be only ONE area of reason/rationality.

Karen: Because we have an evolutionary trait to survive and survival is more likely if you are logical.

Dave says: we also have an evolutionary trait that compels us to destroy. Why choose preservation over destruction, when man has demonstrated that he does both quite well.


Karen: Many other worldviews can.

Dave says: funny, I'm still wait to hear WHICH ONE and how.

Karen: Not only have you not been able to provide evidence that reason came from a god/gods, but you have also provided no evidence whatsoever that, even if you had proven your other assertion, that it would have to be YOUR God.

Dave says: my argument goes beyond "reason came from God." My argument is, more accurately, "God is Truth itself, and the foundation of reason." And, thus, God is the necessary pre-condition to knowing anything at all. And I have proven it. My premises lead to the conclusion I offered, and it stands as a PRIMA FACIE case by the rules of formal debate unless someone actually rebuts the issues I have presented.

I have also told you why it must be our Triune God of Scripture. That is because if you take out or distort any of God's attributes as the Bible defines them, then you lead to incoherence, and a doctrine of God that has philisophically collapsed. You no longer are left with the One who is or can be the precondition of knowledge.


Karen: You are generalizing other views within your own view. How would you like me to say that your God can not be the basis of reason because he does not exist?

Dave says: go ahead and say it. If you can actually put forth a substantive argument for that case, I will be glad to rebut it.

Karen: To anaylize a worldview, the first thing you do is attempt to understand it from the inside; you don't sit there and generalize it from the perspective of your own or of course it will seem false if your view and the other view are mutually contradictory.

Dave says: as an apologist, that is the first thing I do! I analyze non-Christian worldviews on their own merits, and bring out internal contradictions within the presuppositions of the worldviews themselves. When I do this, I can see that they cannot form a coherent basis for reason and knowledge.

Karen: No, you said that the universe is uniform, and therefore atheism is false. I said you needed a bit more explaination than that; you have no explanations for me to refute.

Dave says: I said a LOT MORE than that. My post was really quite long. I gave two specific examples of how the atheist worldview cannot account for reason (induction and morality). I showed how the Christian viewpoint does. Don't skirt these issues.

Karen: The only other thing in there was the opposite huge jump of, "the universe is uniform, therefore my God did it!"

Dave says: again, I said quite a bit more than that.

Karen: The universe is not governed by chance and randomness, it is governed by natural forces. These forces were present before the beginning of the universe. As nothing can be asserted about anything before the universe's beginning, we currently do not know where the forces came from and almost any explanation works.

Dave says: "almost any explanation works"? What is your criterion for something "working"?? Again, you are revealing the utter arbitrariness in your worldview. And what exactly is a "natural force" that GOVERNS the universe. That sounds alot like God to me. Even if I were to believe that a faceless Force runs the universe, that certainly could not provide a foundation for knowledge either. Because then there is no moral reason to believe in knowledge - even if we know it is true. Why SHOULD I (a moral "should"!) believe in truth or logic? David Hume has pointed out that simply because something IS does not mean that we OUGHT to believe it. The moral dimension to knowledge (which exists in even simple logical propositions) is lost - unless God is actually a PERSON, and not just a Force. A Force does not care if 3,000 people died in New York. A Force is indifferent.

Karen: It is not my fault your arguements are baseless and provide no material to refute.

Dave says: well, you're STARTING to address some of the issues I talked about, so that is a start. Apparently you thought there was enough material to refute, for you to write this last post.


>>>I did explain how a uniform universe contradicts atheism. Given atheistic worldview presuppositions, there is no basis to believe that there is such uniformity. Such a presupposition is groundless and arbitrary.<<<

Karen: How so?

Dave says: the atheist has no worldview to account for uniformity. That is why it is arbitrary. They believe in the uniformity of nature - but they cannot justify that belief.

Karen: No offence, but you obviously havn't studied subjective morality.

Subjective morality: The insane proposition that people are rational beings who can govern themselves.

One foundation for morality is evolution. More people in closer relationships are more likely to survive. When 6,000 people die it is immoral because it detrements everyone.

Another foundation is logic. There is something called a social contract which is basically an agreement to treat eachother as with respect and fairness because anyone who breaks these rules is in danger of retaliation. Its kind of like saying "I won't hurt you or your family if you don't hurt me or my family."

Dave says: Yes, it is an insane proposition to claim that people can govern themselves. And, YES, I am quite familiar with subjective morality in academic circles.

Your argument from "evolution" fails, because it takes for granted that when 3,000 people die, it "detrement everyone." That is simply arguing in a circle. Why do you assume that it is a detrement? Bin Laden thought otherwise. Your "social contract" also fails - since many times there are people in positions who CAN hurt others with impunity without having any real chance of being retaliated against. The last President of China lived and died a very very comfortable life of tyranny. In any case, this is simply a form of "might makes right" put into a social/cultural framework.

Karen: Try to cut down the psycological anaylisis again pls. By definition, an atheist does not believe God exists.

Dave says: you do and you don't believe God exists. How is that? You are self-deceived. You suppress the truth in you, your knowledge of God, so that you will not have to face the moral consequences. This is why your professed belief is that of atheist.

Karen: Incorrect. By the atheistic morality, such outrage is quite justified.

Dave says: its justified because....?

Karen: The questions you just described were quite founded as you failed to provide a logical arguement.

Dave says: thanks for the rhetoric.

Karen: If this post seemed a bit harsher than normal, its probably because your ungrounded assertions which you stubbornly refuse to drop as such and back with no evidence whatsoever are getting slightly annoying...

Dave says: maybe you simply don't like the kind of evidence and substantiation I am giving. Maybe you want me to prove God by empirical evidence, scientific evidence, or some other means. But I am offering a transcendental argument. You must deal with it whether or not you like it.

But my conclusion does follow from my premises, and you cannot show that any of my premises are wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

[JerryLove]

Long winded isn't he?

[Karen M]

>>>But my conclusion does follow from my premises, and you cannot show that any of my premises are wrong.<<<


I don't have time to answer all of that right now, but just in case you actually arn't trolling us(which I'm starting to doubt), I would like to ask WHAT permises you started with as I did not see any? :)


Please list them in a coherent manner if you can manage it; for example, say something like:

Premise 1: blah blah blah

Premise 2: blah blah blah

Therefore, blah blah


And so on...it would be much easier to understand.

[Karen M]

>>>Long winded isn't he?<<<

Must have lots of air to blow out from all the extra space in his head... :)

[MrCrabby]

cause and effect is also a natural law.
But that law isn't a physical law that we can observe like gravity.
I believe it is likely the universe did have a cause, though it is unknown what that cause was.
Keep searching. I think you'll find the answer soon enough.
(Also, that is called "The Cosmological argument for the existence of God.")
Under my morality, which is subjective but not relative, they are.
I'm not saying that you are relative, i'm saying that morals from person to person are.

If you believe one thing to be right, yet someone else believes another thing to be right, who are you to tell them they are wrong without some absolute standard to measure "right" and "wrong" against?

That's basically my definition of relative, and without an absolute--everything is relative.
Something is "Good" if it helps the acting individual's family, friends, or self, and something is "Bad" if it deterements the individuals family, friends, or self.
That's still not clear. It depends on the persons interpretation of "detrimental."
But, in this world today, most people just believe that if it's right for you, then it's good.

That's a very dangerous thought to me.

Later,
Mark

[Karen M]

Hello again Mark :)


>>>But that law isn't a physical law that we can observe like gravity.<<<

Yes it is. We have to observe it by induction, but it is still physical. When Joe puts his hand in a fire and it comes out burned, how is that not physical?


>>>Keep searching. I think you'll find the answer soon enough.
(Also, that is called "The Cosmological argument for the existence of God.")<<<

Thats called a huge jump :)

Just because we know there was a cause, we do not know what caused it.



>>>I'm not saying that you are relative, i'm saying that morals from person to person are.<<<

That is why we have a social contract and separation of powers into 3 branches(so that, for example, the president doesn't screw over the legislative branch in self interest or vice-versa, which, unfortunatly I think has already been happening for a while as I think the branches have been come a bit off balance).

The whole purpose of government is to juggle thousands of individual people who are all bardering for their best self interest.


This is somewhat hard to explain, but I'll try:

In evolution, a group of people is better at fighting off the angry lion pack than one person; therefore, societies form and so do group instincts(such as empathy) to promote organization in groups. Also, insticts promoting self-benefit evolve for reasons I think should be already clear as the person who gave away all their food, for example, would starve.

This only leaves the problem of sorting out instances in which one person in the group harms another person in the group. This leads to a social contract that basically means "be nice to me and I'll be nice to you"(also called "laws" :) ). If someone breaks this rule, they get punished. If you have read Hobbes this is easier to get.



>>>If you believe one thing to be right, yet someone else believes another thing to be right, who are you to tell them they are wrong without some absolute standard to measure "right" and "wrong" against?<<<

I don't need an absolute standard to tell them they are wrong. All I need is that this dumbass is in my house with an axe trying to swing it at my child and then I am perfectly justified in shooting him. From my point of view it would be wrong; that is all that matters to each individual(which is, again, why governments are so hard to balance).


>>>That's basically my definition of relative, and without an absolute--everything is relative.<<<

So? :)



>>>That's still not clear. It depends on the persons interpretation of "detrimental."
But, in this world today, most people just believe that if it's right for you, then it's good.<<<

Yes, it does depend on the persons interpretation of detrimental. That is why some people enjoy smoking or eating fast food and others don't. If their view is scewed to the point at which they mass murder people in society, chances are they will end up in jail or executed. Whats your point? :)


Hope that makes it more clear :D

Karen

[MrCrabby]

Hey again:)
Yes it is. We have to observe it by induction, but it is still physical. When Joe puts his hand in a fire and it comes out burned, how is that not physical?
True.
Just because we know there was a cause, we do not know what caused it.
That's why i'm telling you to keep searching.
Whats your point?
Hmmm....i don't remember!:)
But thanks for talking to me anyways!

Goodnight,
Mark

[DaveJes1979]

All right, here is an outline form of my argument, as requested!

---------------------------------------------------------

It can be broken down like this, if you want it to be VERY simple. I don't know how helpful it is, though.

1. If human knowledge exists, then God exists.

2. Humans have knowledge.

3. Thus, God exists.

-----------------------------------------------------------

But here is a better way of expounding this.

1. If a worldview can account for (provide the necessary preconditions of ) knowledge (human reason and rationality, morality, logic, science, linguistic predication, value, and meaning), then that worldview is justified.

2. The Christian worldview provides the preconditions for knowledge. In order to substantiate this, I gave two examples of how the Christian worldview relates to
A. Law of Induction
B. Morality
I demonstrated how, within the Christian worldview, the Law of Induction and Morality are coherent forms of knowledge, and justified tools of knowledge.

3. The non-Christian worldview cannot provide the preconditions for knowledge. Specifically, I addressed the atheistic worldview, but I also touched upon other forms of false theism.
A. Law of Induction
B. Morality


4. Thus God does and must exist, since 2. fulfills the conditions of 1. and 3. does not.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, I fleshed out all of these things in the body of my original post. You can refer back to them. But that is the basic structure of the argument.

All of this is just to say that even in FRAMING THE QUESTION "does God exist", we have already answered the question. If you try to put God out of the equation, then you are "sawing off the limb you are sitting on."

David Gadbois

[Karen M]

Hello again Dave :D


>>>All right, here is an outline form of my argument, as requested!<<<

Thank you :)

>>>It can be broken down like this, if you want it to be VERY simple. I don't know how helpful it is, though.

1. If human knowledge exists, then God exists.

2. Humans have knowledge.

3. Thus, God exists.



But here is a better way of expounding this.

1. If a worldview can account for (provide the necessary preconditions of ) knowledge (human reason and rationality, morality, logic, science, linguistic predication, value, and meaning), then that worldview is justified.<<<

Have you ever heard the question "Can God make a rock which he can not lift?" :)

The most common answer I get to that is, by "omnipotence," it is ment that God can only do everything possible WITHIN LOGIC.

Therefore, logic can not be based on God.


All views justify logic by circular induction; it is using logic to prove logic, but if we assume the opposite that logic is illogical, then there really wouldn't be any point in having this conversation now would there? :)

I personally see logic as a combination of cause and effect and evolution. If the thought coming after a previous thought was not at least somewhat caused by the previous thought, then we wouldn't form coherent chains of thought. :D


>>>2. The Christian worldview provides the preconditions for knowledge. In order to substantiate this, I gave two examples of how the Christian worldview relates to
A. Law of Induction
B. Morality
I demonstrated how, within the Christian worldview, the Law of Induction and Morality are coherent forms of knowledge, and justified tools of knowledge.<<<

Prove that knowledge comes from God. Also, I have already called into question the claim that logic comes from God.


>>>3. The non-Christian worldview cannot provide the preconditions for knowledge. Specifically, I addressed the atheistic worldview, but I also touched upon other forms of false theism.<<<

First of all, the atheist worldview provides that knowledge is what happens when you learn(when you gain stimuli from outside your body, an impulse touches the dendrites of your neurons that sends a wave to the axon hillock, which causes all the potassium atoms to switch places with the salt atoms, which causes the stimuli to move to the next atom and continues through a series of atoms; which causes several million reactions as such in your brain, which causes learning and memory).

Second of all, you did not address other religions accept to say that "they arn't the Christian God so they must be false." These religions also meet said requirements of a base for logic and knowledge, therefore this statement is inadiquite to disprove them.


>>>A. Law of Induction<<<

We assume logic as a base; law of induction is part of logic.

>>>B. Morality<<<

Already provided several posts ago :)


>>>4. Thus God does and must exist, since 2. fulfills the conditions of 1. and 3. does not.<<<

false :)


>>>Obviously, I fleshed out all of these things in the body of my original post. You can refer back to them. But that is the basic structure of the argument.<<<

Thank you for making it easier to read this time :)

>>>All of this is just to say that even in FRAMING THE QUESTION "does God exist", we have already answered the question. If you try to put God out of the equation, then you are "sawing off the limb you are sitting on."<<<

This, again, assumes logic comes from God. Which it doesn't.


Was an interesting post :)

Karen

[DaveJes1979]

Karen: Have you ever heard the question "Can God make a rock which he can not lift?"

The most common answer I get to that is, by "omnipotence," it is ment that God can only do everything possible WITHIN LOGIC.

Therefore, logic can not be based on God.

Dave says: a couple of problems here. First of all, your question boils down to "isn't God ABLE to be UNABLE"? This is a logically incoherent question (it means nothing, since it is self-refuting). Thus I cannot give you a coherent answer to it.

Secondly, I quote theologian Robert Reymond "When we speak of divine omnipotence, however, we do t mean that God can do anything. The first thing God cannot do is whatever is metaphysically or ethically contrary to his nature. For example, he cannoe lie..break his promise, disown himself, or change. Such divine "cannots", far from detracting from God's glory, ARE HIS GLORY....such irrationalities belong to the doamin of logic (and are condemned by it) and not to the domain of power at all." (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian faith)

Thirdly, I would say that logic is an attribute of God. Logic is not above God. Thus, God cannot do the illogical because it would be contrary to His nature.


Karen: All views justify logic by circular induction; it is using logic to prove logic, but if we assume the opposite that logic is illogical, then there really wouldn't be any point in having this conversation now would there?

Dave says: I am asking WHY we assume that logic is a valid tool of knowledge. Which worldview, the theistic or atheistic, provides the necessary epistmological foundation to account for such things as logic. I am not asking to prove that "logic is logical," but rather "does logic lead to true knowledge, how, and in what worldview?"

Karen: I personally see logic as a combination of cause and effect and evolution. If the thought coming after a previous thought was not at least somewhat caused by the previous thought, then we wouldn't form coherent chains of thought.

Dave says: indeed, we would not. Which is why I wonder why it is you trust your own thoughts, since you cannot account for logic. How do you know that cause and effect are related? How do you know that the phenomena in nature that you see are connected to previous events? An appeal to blind forces (such as evolution) cannot account for that which is ordered. Even if that were the case, no one would be obligated to believe it. When we ask "why SHOULD I believe something", you are adding a moral dimension to knowledge - which an impersonal Force is indifferent to.


Karen: Prove that knowledge comes from God. Also, I have already called into question the claim that logic comes from God.

Dave says: you have it backwards. I have shown how, under the Christian presuppositions, knowledge is possible and justified. You don't work FROM knowledge to validate God. That is backwards. Its like looking for the sun with a match. Conversely, I did show how the atheistic worldview, on its own presuppositions, could NOT justify the assumption of induction.


Karen: First of all, the atheist worldview provides that knowledge is what happens when you learn(when you gain stimuli from outside your body, an impulse touches the dendrites of your neurons that sends a wave to the axon hillock, which causes all the potassium atoms to switch places with the salt atoms, which causes the stimuli to move to the next atom and continues through a series of atoms; which causes several million reactions as such in your brain, which causes learning and memory).

Dave says: this does not address induction at all. But I will still address it. Why is it that you trust a chemical reaction to bring you in contact with logic and rationality? I can also go into details about how a can of soda fizzes at the molecular level - but does that lead to a dependable source of rationality? Similar chemical reactions also take place in lower life forms, even microscopic organisms have a crude nervous system of sorts. Of course, you still have a long way to go from mere sensory data to true knowledge.

Karen: Second of all, you did not address other religions accept to say that "they arn't the Christian God so they must be false." These religions also meet said requirements of a base for logic and knowledge, therefore this statement is inadiquite to disprove them.

Dave says: actually, I addressed the 2 other majors monotheistic religions (Islam and Judaism) to show how their God-concept is inadequate. A capricious God who is arbitrary in his dealings with man is no foundation for order or knowledge. I also pointed that when you compromise the Christian doctrine of God, it leads to a philisophical collapse of a coherent perception of God. For instance - if you take away God's foreknowledge of future events, then you take away God's eternality and omnipotence. That is just a small example, but you get the picture. You cannot arbitrarily piece together any arbitrary picture of a god and have it lead to a foundation for knowledge.

>>>A. Law of Induction<<<

We assume logic as a base; law of induction is part of logic.

Dave says: again, WHY do you assume logic? Logic itself is only one part of knowledge. Induction is an integral part of logic (thus I am using it in this example), but you cannot start with some nebulous concept of "logic" and then say it justifies induction. What matters here is worldview presuppositions - whose worldview provides the presuppositional foundation for knowing anything at all?

>>>B. Morality<<<

Karen: already provided several posts ago

Dave says: yes, and I responded to your arguments for atheistic reality, and I think I showed them to be arbitrary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Christ,

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

[Karen M]

Good morning Dave :)


>>>Dave says: a couple of problems here. First of all, your question boils down to "isn't God ABLE to be UNABLE"? This is a logically incoherent question (it means nothing, since it is self-refuting). Thus I cannot give you a coherent answer to it.<<<

Exactly, that is why logic has to be outside God.


>>>Secondly, I quote theologian Robert Reymond "When we speak of divine omnipotence, however, we do t mean that God can do anything. The first thing God cannot do is whatever is metaphysically or ethically contrary to his nature. For example, he cannoe lie..break his promise, disown himself, or change. Such divine "cannots", far from detracting from God's glory, ARE HIS GLORY....such irrationalities belong to the doamin of logic (and are condemned by it) and not to the domain of power at all." (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian faith)

Thirdly, I would say that logic is an attribute of God. Logic is not above God. Thus, God cannot do the illogical because it would be contrary to His nature.<<<

Prove this.


>>>Dave says: I am asking WHY we assume that logic is a valid tool of knowledge. Which worldview, the theistic or atheistic, provides the necessary epistmological foundation to account for such things as logic. I am not asking to prove that "logic is logical," but rather "does logic lead to true knowledge, how, and in what worldview?"<<<

First of all, prove that logic has to be a valid tool of knowledge and prove that this valid tool of knowledge came from your God.

The only reason we think we know anything is because we assume that logic is valid by circular induction. This is the starting point in EVERY worldview.


>>>Dave says: indeed, we would not. Which is why I wonder why it is you trust your own thoughts, since you cannot account for logic. How do you know that cause and effect are related?<<<

We assume logic works. There is no actual way to deductively prove it does.


>>>How do you know that the phenomena in nature that you see are connected to previous events? An appeal to blind forces (such as evolution) cannot account for that which is ordered.<<<

It is ordered because it comes from cause and effect.


>>>Even if that were the case, no one would be obligated to believe it. When we ask "why SHOULD I believe something", you are adding a moral dimension to knowledge - which an impersonal Force is indifferent to.<<<

People disire to know things logically because rational people are more likely to survive than irrational ones.



>>>Dave says: you have it backwards. I have shown how, under the Christian presuppositions, knowledge is possible and justified.<<<

And I have shown how, under ANY presuppositions, knowledge is justified and possible. Once again, every worldview starts with the assumption that logic works and knowledge exists.


>>>You don't work FROM knowledge to validate God. That is backwards. Its like looking for the sun with a match.<<<

Prove this then.



>>>Conversely, I did show how the atheistic worldview, on its own presuppositions, could NOT justify the assumption of induction.<<<

No you didn’t. You showed how logic is assumed to work but that that isn’t necessarily true; this was not contested because we already agree with you. This statement also, however, applies to Christianity.


>>>Dave says: this does not address induction at all. But I will still address it. Why is it that you trust a chemical reaction to bring you in contact with logic and rationality?<<<

Because it works in an orderly fashion with natural forces. Logic also works in an orderly fashion and it is quite possible that it came from cause and effect and evolution.


>>>I can also go into details about how a can of soda fizzes at the molecular level - but does that lead to a dependable source of rationality?<<<

Logic is a much more complex reaction.


>>>Similar chemical reactions also take place in lower life forms, even microscopic organisms have a crude nervous system of sorts. Of course, you still have a long way to go from mere sensory data to true knowledge.<<<

These “lower life forms” also learn things. This is why you can teach a dog tricks.



>>>Dave says: actually, I addressed the 2 other majors monotheistic religions (Islam and Judaism) to show how their God-concept is inadequate. A capricious God who is arbitrary in his dealings with man is no foundation for order or knowledge. I also pointed that when you compromise the Christian doctrine of God, it leads to a philisophical collapse of a coherent perception of God. For instance - if you take away God's foreknowledge of future events, then you take away God's eternality and omnipotence. That is just a small example, but you get the picture. You cannot arbitrarily piece together any arbitrary picture of a god and have it lead to a foundation for knowledge.<<<

How can you know the mind of Allah? The Muslim God is just as omniscent as yours is. ;)



>>>Dave says: again, WHY do you assume logic? Logic itself is only one part of knowledge. Induction is an integral part of logic (thus I am using it in this example), but you cannot start with some nebulous concept of "logic" and then say it justifies induction. What matters here is worldview presuppositions - whose worldview provides the presuppositional foundation for knowing anything at all?<<<

No worldview can prove a foundation for logic; they can only assume logic works by circular induction.

Prove your God is the source of morality, logic, or knowledge.


>>>Dave says: yes, and I responded to your arguments for atheistic reality, and I think I showed them to be arbitrary.<<<

Where?




Dave, it was a nice argument, but the problem is it can be used to justify ANYTHING depending on what you insert for “x” :)


For example:

1. Humans get logic from evolution

2. Humans have logic

3. Evolution exists



I figure it will be easier to see the problems now :)…..first of all, you make an unjustified assumption of where logic comes from and you assume logic works. Every worldview has to assume logic by circular induction; so I’ll give that one to you by the very fact that we are having a converstion at all; but you should add another criteria claiming “If logic works.” :) That leaves the assumption of where logic comes from, which you have left unproven and unjustified.


Hope that clears that up :D

Karen

[Chrysostom]

Many thanks for your posting, Dave. i have recently attempted to argue your thoughts on the 9/11 attack (in relation to the rearranging of matter\energy), but was not entirely effective as i had not totally thought it through. This thread is helping me understand a greater scheme behind the meager argument i haphazardly discovered.

[DaveJes1979]

Karen: Exactly, that is why logic has to be outside God.

Dave says: no, as I said below, it is one of His unchangeable attributes.

Karen: Prove this.

Dave says: it simply follows from our conception and definition of God. Just as He is eternal, so He is also logical. Those are both His attributes.

Karen: First of all, prove that logic has to be a valid tool of knowledge and prove that this valid tool of knowledge came from your God.

Dave says: if logic is not a valid tool of knowledge, then why use it? If it is not, then all of our thoughts have nothing at all to do with reality, and we are living in a perpetual dreamland. And I have proved that knowledge came from God - because God is the only and necessary worldview pressuposition that provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge. That has been my whole argument, in a few words.

Karen: The only reason we think we know anything is because we assume that logic is valid by circular induction. This is the starting point in EVERY worldview.

Dave says: but only the theistic worldview can account for induction. You cannot make induction a starting point when there are more fundamental questions about the nature of reality that must first be in place in order for induction to be a justified assumption. Induction, and even more generally, logic, are only particular tools and forms of knowledge and reason.

Karen: We assume logic works. There is no actual way to deductively prove it does.

Dave says: indeed, you must assume it. But why make a blind leap like that? Why not just as arbitrarily assume that logic doesn't work? Since the atheistic worldview cannot answer more fundamental questions about reality, it must arbitrarily come to these assumptions.

Karen: It is ordered because it comes from cause and effect.

Dave says: that again is circular. Cause and effect could only exist if we already presumed that there is order.

Karen: People disire to know things logically because rational people are more likely to survive than irrational ones.

Dave says: well, all of this departs from the point a little bit (that being the justification of induction). But again, implicit in this sentence is the assumption that survival is better than destruction.

Karen: And I have shown how, under ANY presuppositions, knowledge is justified and possible. Once again, every worldview starts with the assumption that logic works and knowledge exists.

Dave says: under ANY pressupositions? Is knowledge really that arbitrary of a thing? You can mix and match together a philisophical worldview as you please, and it will always come out coherently? Just make it up as you go along, and you will have a solid foundation for interpreting reality????

I deny that EVERY worldview starts with the assumption that logic works. There are more fundamental epistemological questions about the nature of reality to deal with before these assumptions can be justified (and not just arbitrarily assumed).


>>>You don't work FROM knowledge to validate God. That is backwards. Its like looking for the sun with a match.<<<

Karen: Prove this then.

Dave says: I have, in the form of this transcendental argument. I have started with God, and shown how He provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge, and how the atheistic worldview cannot. Thus, I have started with the sun in order to strike my match.

>>>Conversely, I did show how the atheistic worldview, on its own presuppositions, could NOT justify the assumption of induction.<<<

Karen: No you didn’t. You showed how logic is assumed to work but that that isn’t necessarily true; this was not contested because we already agree with you. This statement also, however, applies to Christianity.

Dave says: you agree that logic works, but I wonder WHY you think logic works under the atheistic pressupositions. In a universe that is raw matter in motion, randomness, chance, (or run by a Force that doesn't care about what goes on), there is no room for meaningful knowledge. I showed how, on the Christian pressupositions, this provides a foundation for knowledge to exist.

Karen: Because it works in an orderly fashion with natural forces. Logic also works in an orderly fashion and it is quite possible that it came from cause and effect and evolution.

Dave says: but again, why assume order (for your "orderly fashion")? And, again, natural forces (the Force) doesn't CARE about what goes on. It is just a blind dictator, and leaves us with no reason why we OUGHT to believe anything. And, reguarding cause and effect (of which evolution is simply a form of), why assume that there is such a thing as cause and effect? You could only conclude that from the law of induction, which assumes the uniformity of nature. And this gets back to my original question about how the atheistic worldview can account for such uniformity (and thus, induction).

Karen: Logic is a much more complex reaction.

Dave says: logic is a chemical reaction?

Karen: These “lower life forms” also learn things. This is why you can teach a dog tricks.

Dave says: you have a long way to go from a stimulus/response and memory to the attainment of truth.

Karen: How can you know the mind of Allah? The Muslim God is just as omniscent as yours is.

Dave says: I am glad you brought up this question. Yes, Allah is indeed omniscient. But He is also arbitrary. That is, He is not even bound to act consistently with Himself, with His own nature and attributes. Such a capricious god does not leave us with a foundation for knowledge.

Karen: No worldview can prove a foundation for logic; they can only assume logic works by circular induction.

Dave says: I have shown how the Christian worldview does indeed provide such a foundation. But it is fallacious to employ circular reasoning to "prove" that induction works.

Karen: Prove your God is the source of morality, logic, or knowledge.

Dave says: again, I have proven it by showing that, under Christian worldview pressupositions, we have a foundation for knowledge, and how other worldview do not. Thus, God is that necessary condition for morality, logic, or knowledge to exist.


>>>Dave says: yes, and I responded to your arguments for atheistic reality, and I think I showed them to be arbitrary.<<<

Karen: Where?

Dave says: my message from 12/5 is the last time I directly dealt with the atheistic probems with induction/morality.

Dave, it was a nice argument, but the problem is it can be used to justify ANYTHING depending on what you insert for “x”


For example:

1. Humans get logic from evolution

2. Humans have logic

3. Evolution exists

Dave says: no, you cannot insert anything into x. Our "x" (God) has a definite nature we attribute to Him, with vast worldview, philisophical, metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological implications.

I have already dealt with how evolution cannot be put in as a substitute for God above.

Karen: I figure it will be easier to see the problems now …..first of all, you make an unjustified assumption of where logic comes from and you assume logic works.

Dave says: I don't ASSUME logic works. I know it works because my Christian pressupositions justify logic. And I do not "assume" logic comes from God, I have showed how logic could only be possible under the Christian worldview.

Karen: Every worldview has to assume logic by circular induction; so I’ll give that one to you by the very fact that we are having a converstion at all; but you should add another criteria claiming “If logic works.” That leaves the assumption of where logic comes from, which you have left unproven and unjustified.

Dave says: again, it is simply fallacious to assume (or to CIRCULARLY reason!) that logic works when there are more foundational questions about the nature of reality to deal with.

Again, I have proven and justified my case. I have proven it by showing that God is the NECESSARY precondition for knowledge at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Gadbois

[Unregistered]

Hello again Dave :)


>>>Karen: Exactly, that is why logic has to be outside God.

Dave says: no, as I said below, it is one of His unchangeable attributes.<<<

Prove it.


>>>Karen: Prove this.

Dave says: it simply follows from our conception and definition of God. Just as He is eternal, so He is also logical. Those are both His attributes.<<<

Prove this too. :)


>>>Karen: First of all, prove that logic has to be a valid tool of knowledge and prove that this valid tool of knowledge came from your God.

Dave says: if logic is not a valid tool of knowledge, then why use it?<<<

Yes, I have already given that one too you as all worldviews must assume logic.


>>>If it is not, then all of our thoughts have nothing at all to do with reality, and we are living in a perpetual dreamland. And I have proved that knowledge came from God - because God is the only and necessary worldview pressuposition that provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge.<<<

Prove it. I claim that logic came from evolution. Why does you claiming logic came from God have any more base than my claim?



>>>That has been my whole argument, in a few words.<<<

Okay, prove that your God is the only way we could have the perception of logic(notice, I said the perception of logic, not logic itself, which is only assumed to exist).



>>>Dave says: but only the theistic worldview can account for induction. You cannot make induction a starting point when there are more fundamental questions about the nature of reality that must first be in place in order for induction to be a justified assumption. Induction, and even more generally, logic, are only particular tools and forms of knowledge and reason.<<<

Yes, thats why we assume they work. Once again, the base of every belief system is an assumption that logic works.



>>>Dave says: indeed, you must assume it. But why make a blind leap like that? Why not just as arbitrarily assume that logic doesn't work?<<<

Because that would be unbenefictial on the evolutionary scale.


>>>Since the atheistic worldview cannot answer more fundamental questions about reality, it must arbitrarily come to these assumptions.<<<

What answers to "fundamental questions" would you be refurring too? :) Meaning we don't jump to random conclusions when there isn't enough evidence to support them?


>>>Dave says: that again is circular. Cause and effect could only exist if we already presumed that there is order.<<<

No, cause and effect could only exist if we assumed that logic works(and therefore logical induction works).


>>>Dave says: well, all of this departs from the point a little bit (that being the justification of induction). But again, implicit in this sentence is the assumption that survival is better than destruction.<<<

It is. If you could be one thing and nothing else, would you rather be alive or be rational?


>>>Dave says: under ANY pressupositions? Is knowledge really that arbitrary of a thing? You can mix and match together a philisophical worldview as you please, and it will always come out coherently? Just make it up as you go along, and you will have a solid foundation for interpreting reality????<<<<<<

I did not mean it that literally. I ment simply, under EACH worldview in existance, they have to pre-assume logic works or they wouldn't exist.



>>>I deny that EVERY worldview starts with the assumption that logic works. There are more fundamental epistemological questions about the nature of reality to deal with before these assumptions can be justified (and not just arbitrarily assumed).<<<

Would you like to back this up with something? :)


>>>Dave says: I have, in the form of this transcendental argument. I have started with God, and shown how He provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge, and how the atheistic worldview cannot. Thus, I have started with the sun in order to strike my match.<<<

No, you have said the "x" in my example exists, logic exists, therefore "x" exists. I have already shown this same arguement works for evolution too. It would also work for Jerry's phase-shifted unicorns.



>>>Dave says: you agree that logic works, but I wonder WHY you think logic works under the atheistic pressupositions.<<<

Same with your worldview. Once again, all worldviews start with assuming logic exists.


>>>In a universe that is raw matter in motion, randomness, chance, (or run by a Force that doesn't care about what goes on)<<<<

It is not run by randomness and chance, it is run by naturalistic, orderly forces.


>>>there is no room for meaningful knowledge.<<<

Yes there is, survival.


>>>I showed how, on the Christian pressupositions, this provides a foundation for knowledge to exist.<<<

No, you have shown how it is possible for it to exist under the Christian worldview, but you have not shown why your possibility is any more reliable than the possibilities of any other worldviews.



>>Dave says: but again, why assume order (for your "orderly fashion")?<<<

Induction.


>>>And, again, natural forces (the Force) doesn't CARE about what goes on. It is just a blind dictator, and leaves us with no reason why we OUGHT to believe anything.<<<

There is no absolute reason why we OUGHT to believe anything. The reason we believe it is best to believe things is because in evolution, the people who were knowledgable survived so its instinctive to want to learn.



>>>And, reguarding cause and effect (of which evolution is simply a form of), why assume that there is such a thing as cause and effect?<<<

Induction.


>>>you could only conclude that from the law of induction, which assumes the uniformity of nature. And this gets back to my original question about how the atheistic worldview can account for such uniformity (and thus, induction).<<<

We assume logic works; just like every other worldview. Induction is part of logic.


>>>Dave says: logic is a chemical reaction?<<<

When people think through things logically, yes, they are undergoing chemical reactions. The concept of logic, on the other hand, is a human construct.


>>>Dave says: you have a long way to go from a stimulus/response and memory to the attainment of truth.<<<

Says you. Call it a very big chemical reaction. ;) It is possible by induction that learning is, in fact, a chemical response in the brain because the bigger the species' brain, the more it tends to be able to learn. This is why apes are smarter than dogs and pigs are smarter than ants; they have larger brains(or at least more surface area on their brain) and more complex chemical reactions.


>>>Dave says: I am glad you brought up this question. Yes, Allah is indeed omniscient. But He is also arbitrary. That is, He is not even bound to act consistently with Himself, with His own nature and attributes. Such a capricious god does not leave us with a foundation for knowledge.<<<

Prove Allah is inconsistant. He has the same exact attributes as your God exept that he isn't three people at once(which, by the way, I think actually make him MORE coherent).


>>>Dave says: I have shown how the Christian worldview does indeed provide such a foundation. But it is fallacious to employ circular reasoning to "prove" that induction works.<<<

Wrong, the Christian worldview assumes logic works. Then the "logical" person reads a book and assumes that the book is correct(which I think is also a bit of a leap, but lets not get into that...). Only THEN do you assume that this logic(which you have already assumed works) comes from your God.


>>>Dave says: again, I have proven it by showing that, under Christian worldview pressupositions, we have a foundation for knowledge, and how other worldview do not.<<<

No you haven't. I have brought up several times how atheism and other beliefs have foundations for these same things.

>>>Thus, God is that necessary condition for morality, logic, or knowledge to exist.<<<

False :)


>>>Dave says: my message from 12/5 is the last time I directly dealt with the atheistic probems with induction/morality.<<<

Try actually reading the posts after that. Your "problems" have already been refuted.



>>>Dave says: no, you cannot insert anything into x. Our "x" (God) has a definite nature we attribute to Him, with vast worldview, philisophical, metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological implications.<<<

And our "x" is nature itself.


>>>I have already dealt with how evolution cannot be put in as a substitute for God above.<<<

No you haven't :)



>>>Dave says: I don't ASSUME logic works. I know it works because my Christian pressupositions justify logic. And I do not "assume" logic comes from God, I have showed how logic could only be possible under the Christian worldview.<<<

I have already addressed this in a previous response so I'll just give the short answer. Once again, every worldview can only assume logic works by induction.


>>>Dave says: again, it is simply fallacious to assume (or to CIRCULARLY reason!) that logic works<<<

Yes, it is fallacious, but there is no point in holding the other option(that logic does not work).


>>>when there are more foundational questions about the nature of reality to deal with.<<<

Like what?


>>Again, I have proven and justified my case.<<<

No you haven't :)


>>>I have proven it by showing that God is the NECESSARY precondition for knowledge at all.<<<

No you haven't here either...


Nice try agian though :)

Karen

[Karen M]

I keep forgetting to log in...

[Chrysostom]

Dave: i fail to see how this proves God is real over some other creator, such as the phase-shifted pink unicorns.

[DaveJes1979]

Karen: Prove this too.

Dave says: OK, again all of these attributes follow DEFINITIONALLY from who God is (under the Christian conception). You do not prove this as you would prove that gravity attracts bodies to the earth at 9.81 m/s^2. Again, I am proving the Christian worldview by showing how, on its own pressupositions (including our definition of God), it accounts for knowledge. That is the proof.

Karen: Yes, I have already given that one too you as all worldviews must assume logic.

Dave says: I have not assumed it at all, since my worldview actually rationally accounts for it.

Karen: Prove it. I claim that logic came from evolution. Why does you claiming logic came from God have any more base than my claim?

Dave says: because I have proven it by showing how, under Christian pressupositions, I am able to justify the assumption of the reality of knowledge. On my original post, I did this by using two examples of knowledge, induction and morality, and showing how each worldview tries or fails to account for them.

Karen: Okay, prove that your God is the only way we could have the perception of logic(notice, I said the perception of logic, not logic itself, which is only assumed to exist).

Dave says: well, your demand/challenge here is beside the point. My original argument focused in on morality and induction. But fine, I will address the perception of knowledge. As I said before, under my pressupositions, I am made in the image of God, and have a concious, rational, thinking spirit as a result. Thus, I have the ability to come to true knowledge, because I am not simply raw molecules in motion (I am not just a complex soda fizzing). And, since God has revealed truth to humanity, I can know true knowledge. That is because God has exhaustively interpreted all of the facts of the universe. I cannot do so, so I cannot rely on myself as an autonomous thinker from God.

Karen: Yes, thats why we assume they work. Once again, the base of every belief system is an assumption that logic works.

Dave says: again, it is fallacious to circularly assume that "logic works." That is not my starting point (as I have alreadydemonstrated), so not every belief system starts there (and neither SHOULD they, since there are more foundational questions to be answered first). But let us say that I believe logic works. But what if I, at the same time, were to deny that induction is a valid part of logic. Then what? As I have already shown, the atheistic view of the world cannot justify the assumption that indution is a valid method of knowledge/reason/logic.

Karen: Because that would be unbenefictial on the evolutionary scale.

Dave says: to the contrary. Under the evolutionary scheme, it is quite beneficial for entire species to be wiped out because they cannot make the cut.

Karen: What answers to "fundamental questions" would you be refurring too? Meaning we don't jump to random conclusions when there isn't enough evidence to support them?

Dave says: I am dealing , once again, with the necessary worldview pressupositions. I am talking about metaphysical and epistemological schemes that govern the universe. The law of induction and morality are RESULTS of these a priori pressupositions. In answer to these fundamental questions, you keep referring to evolution. Actually, evolution already assumes the uniformity of natue, and is simply a type of mechanistic cause and effect relationship.


>>>Dave says: that again is circular. Cause and effect could only exist if we already presumed that there is order.<<<

Karen: No, cause and effect could only exist if we assumed that logic works(and therefore logical induction works).

Dave says: you are denying that there needs to be order in order for cause and effect to exist? You are right in saying that logic must exist, but how does that lead to a denial of what I stated?


>>>Dave says: well, all of this departs from the point a little bit (that being the justification of induction). But again, implicit in this sentence is the assumption that survival is better than destruction.<<<

Karen: It is. If you could be one thing and nothing else, would you rather be alive or be rational?

Dave says: now you are appealing to subjective feelings. I "feel" that I would rather be alive, but suicidals would not. But I also dislike vanilla ice cream :) What makes one "right" and the other "wrong"? Evolution is just a blind, mechanistic, brutal power. It is indifferent to what goes on - whether anything lives or dies.

Karen: I did not mean it that literally. I ment simply, under EACH worldview in existance, they have to pre-assume logic works or they wouldn't exist.

Dave says: again, I do not pre-assume it, since my worldview actually accounts for it. I do not have to appeal to circular (and thus arbitrary) reasoning.

Karen: No, you have said the "x" in my example exists, logic exists, therefore "x" exists. I have already shown this same arguement works for evolution too. It would also work for Jerry's phase-shifted unicorns.

Dave says: but I have also given justification of how my "x" accounts for knowledge and rationality. Again, refer to my argument outline that I posted. I showed how God is the necessary precondition for knowledge by using two examples, induction and morality. God has attributes (which a generic "x" does not have) which have vast metaphysical and epistemological implications, and can lead to such rational accounts of knowledge.

Jerry's phase-shifted unicorns (I want one!) cannot account for, say, the uniformity of nature, or objective moral standards. If he can argue for that, I'd love to hear it!

>>>In a universe that is raw matter in motion, randomness, chance, (or run by a Force that doesn't care about what goes on)<<<<

It is not run by randomness and chance, it is run by naturalistic, orderly forces.

Dave says: but your naturalistic Force doesn't care about what is going on. This Force is blind. Yes, this force has order, and is mechanistic, but it amount to nothing more than the Greek god of Fate. This god doesn't care if you believe in him, nor does it care about the moral dealings of man.


>>>there is no room for meaningful knowledge.<<<

Karen: Yes there is, survival.

Dave says: evolution or your Force (Fate) does not care if anything survives. Things JUST HAPPEN.

Karen: No, you have shown how it is possible for it to exist under the Christian worldview, but you have not shown why your possibility is any more reliable than the possibilities of any other worldviews.

Dave says: I have shown how it cannot exist under atheistic of false-god worldviews by addressing specifically induction and morality.



>>Dave says: but again, why assume order (for your "orderly fashion")?<<<

Induction.

Dave says: wrong, induction is the product of the a priori assumption of order. Induction would not be valid unless we already knew order existed.

Karen: There is no absolute reason why we OUGHT to believe anything. The reason we believe it is best to believe things is because in evolution, the people who were knowledgable survived so its instinctive to want to learn.

Dave says: then you are saying there there is no reason why I OUGHT to believe what you just typed :)

Karen: We assume logic works; just like every other worldview. Induction is part of logic.

Dave says: how do you know induction is logical? You can only assume such in a world that is ordered.


>>>Dave says: logic is a chemical reaction?<<<

Karen: When people think through things logically, yes, they are undergoing chemical reactions. The concept of logic, on the other hand, is a human construct.

Dave says: how do you know that these human constructs have anything whatsoever to do with the truth of the reality about them?


>>>Dave says: you have a long way to go from a stimulus/response and memory to the attainment of truth.<<<

Karen: Says you. Call it a very big chemical reaction. It is possible by induction that learning is, in fact, a chemical response in the brain because the bigger the species' brain, the more it tends to be able to learn. This is why apes are smarter than dogs and pigs are smarter than ants; they have larger brains(or at least more surface area on their brain) and more complex chemical reactions.

Dave says: you do have ways to go. Even your sensory data must be interpreted by a priori assumptions. If you assume, say, the uniformity of nature,then you are going to interpret your sensory data in certain ways in order to form conclusions.

Karen: Prove Allah is inconsistant. He has the same exact attributes as your God exept that he isn't three people at once(which, by the way, I think actually make him MORE coherent).

Dave says: well, one of the main ways in which Allah is consistent is in the attribute of justice. Islam has no way to reconcile Allah's mercy (the fact the sinners sometimes DON'T get punished) and his justice (the fact that Allah demands punishment for sin). It leads to Allah simply overlooking or blowing off someone's sins when he forgives them. The Christian worldview, however, can reconcile God's forgiveness and justice - because Jesus for us fulfilled the demands of justice in order for sinners to be forgiven, by bearing the punishment due us in our stead.

Karen: Wrong, the Christian worldview assumes logic works. Then the "logical" person reads a book and assumes that the book is correct(which I think is also a bit of a leap, but lets not get into that...). Only THEN do you assume that this logic(which you have already assumed works) comes from your God.

Dave says: no, God exists and is the foundation for logic, whether or not we read it in the Bible. He is revealed in ourselves and in nature. The Bible exists that we might know God's path of salvation, specifically. So as a Christian, my a priori pressuposition is that God exists - and THEREFORE induction is possible.

Karen: No you haven't. I have brought up several times how atheism and other beliefs have foundations for these same things.

Dave says: and I have answered them.

>>>Thus, God is that necessary condition for morality, logic, or knowledge to exist.<<<

Karen: Try actually reading the posts after that. Your "problems" have already been refuted.

Dave says: after that, you simply asked me for an outline of my argument, in the form of premises and conclusions. I did so, and you responded to that. But I never got those issues in the 12/5 post actually directly addressed.

Karen: And our "x" is nature itself.

Dave says: and I have shown that it is circular to assume that nature itself is uniform, and that it certainly cannot provide a basis for morality.

>>>Dave says: again, it is simply fallacious to assume (or to CIRCULARLY reason!) that logic works<<<

Karen: Yes, it is fallacious, but there is no point in holding the other option(that logic does not work).

Dave says: maybe there is a point in assuming that logic doesn't work. How do you know? It is utterly arbitrary for you to turn one way, rather than another. So this proves my point all along - that the atheistic worldview cannot provide a rational account of these things. It can only arbitrarily embrace them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

[Karen M]

Okay Dave,


You win. You have shouted the loudest. I am not going to continue to debate with someone who won't listen to my arguements and continuously brings up issues that have already been refuted. I have shown your arguement to be invalid several times now. If you want to continue to play your game of "whoever talks last wins," feel free. :)

On the other hand, if you can find someone reasonable to vouch for your arguement, such as Must, Aaron, Pleasure, etc....Then I will reconsider it as I trust them not to uphold an arguement they believe to logically unsound.

[Chrysostom]

Okay Karen; i think i'll try it for a few.

The basis for this argument is that an atheistic worldview is inconsistent with itself. It claims that this "universe" and "people" are just a collection of randomly moving particles\energy. How, therefore, do both logic and ethics exist under the atheistic worldview? There is no way they could exist (to my knowledge) under the atheistic worldview.

As already shown, the Christian worldview quite effectively explains these phenomenon (want me to recant?)

that's the starters in a nutshell ;)

[Karen M]

Hello Must :)


>>>Okay Karen; i think i'll try it for a few.

The basis for this argument is that an atheistic worldview is inconsistent with itself. It claims that this "universe" and "people" are just a collection of randomly moving particles\energy.<<<

Not quite; it claims that everything is naturallistic but not necessairly random. For example, in evolution there is a standard of the weakest to survive in the environment die off and the strongest attributes for the environment live and reproduce; it is not a random cycle of "gee...I think I'll go with THAT gene today..." ;)


>>>How, therefore, do both logic and ethics exist under the atheistic worldview? There is no way they could exist (to my knowledge) under the atheistic worldview.<<<

First of all, we assume logic. This is kind of like you assuming God. These are the prerequosites to my view: 1) logic works(which, if it didn't work we wouldn't be aware of it anyway as we would be illogical and there also wouldn't be any point in this conversation ;) )...2) human senses are at least partially, if not mostly, accurate(this is believed by induction, which is part of logic. You could bring out that everyone could be bodies stuffed into little tubes with wires in their head sending impulses like "The Matrix," but then I would have to call out occam's razor on you :p )

Therefore, you will disprove my view if you prove that logic is illogical(though I admit I don't know how that is possible w/o using logic :) )


For ethics, I believe they are a mixture of the will to have self-benefit, evolutionary instinct, and social contract. I have already addressed this to GF on the previous page in more detail, if you are interested I could just C+P it? :)

>>>As already shown, the Christian worldview quite effectively explains these phenomenon (want me to recant?)<<<

I have not disputed that the Christian worldview explains these things; I have disputed that the Christian worldview is the ONLY view that explains these things...


I look forward to your response :)

Karen

[Chrysostom]

Hello Karen :D

>>Not quite; it claims that everything is naturallistic but not necessairly random. For example, in evolution there is a standard of the weakest to survive in the environment die off and the strongest attributes for the environment live and reproduce; it is not a random cycle of "gee...I think I'll go with THAT gene today..." ;)<<

Define naturalistic, first off.

i was under the impression that the atheistic worldview includes a self-interpreting cosmos which spontaneously began existence and, considering that the original existence was spontaneous, continues to be randomly governed.

>>First of all, we assume logic. This is kind of like you assuming God. These are the prerequosites to my view: 1) logic works(which, if it didn't work we wouldn't be aware of it anyway as we would be illogical and there also wouldn't be any point in this conversation ;) )...<<

God accounts for logic. Are you saying that logic was in existence before the universe, spontaneously came into existence, or..?

>>2) human senses are at least partially, if not mostly, accurate(this is believed by induction, which is part of logic. You could bring out that everyone could be bodies stuffed into little tubes with wires in their head sending impulses like "The Matrix," but then I would have to call out occam's razor on you :p )<<

This is totally unbased and assumed. These are two things which atheism is supposed to account for, but cops it out as assumptions.

>>Therefore, you will disprove my view if you prove that logic is illogical(though I admit I don't know how that is possible w/o using logic :) )<<

Where did sentience come from? Why did a universe which was formerly governed by randomness suddenly spawn separate wills and sentience?

>>For ethics, I believe they are a mixture of the will to have self-benefit, evolutionary instinct, and social contract. I have already addressed this to GF on the previous page in more detail, if you are interested I could just C+P it? :)<<

And where did any of those three things come from? Human beings don't exist; it's all just a bunch of particles and energy in motion through space! There are no people, wills, self-benefits, evolutionary instincts, social contracts, etc., etc.



--Am i getting any of the ideas, Dave? i already feel like i'm getting in over my head. Ah well; perhaps i will learn as i go (like i do with everything else lolz) ;)

[Karen M]

One more thing Must... :p

I thought this over a bit, and I was wondering what you would say to this:

Christians must also assume logic first in their worldview. Even Descartes had to assume logic worked before he could come up with "I think, therefore I am." Christians must assume logic works, then they must read a Bible and come to what is, from their point of view, a logical conclusion that it is true, and because the Bible is true and the Bible mentions God, THEN they can assume God. :)


Also, you have only claimed that logic, or at least the perception of logic, comes from God; you have not proven that said logic WORKS. :)


Just some thoughts,

karen

[Karen M]

Greetings again Must :)


>>>Define naturalistic, first off.<<<

Anything that isn't supernatural


>>>i was under the impression that the atheistic worldview includes a self-interpreting cosmos which spontaneously began existence and, considering that the original existence was spontaneous, continues to be randomly governed.<<<

Wrong. The atheistic worldview believes that we do not have enough evidence to decide what happened; though, as something just popping into existance sounds contradictory, I think we can rule that one out :) Basically, it could have been anything, but we should not just guess at what it was without evidence.


>>>God accounts for logic. Are you saying that logic was in existence before the universe, spontaneously came into existence, or..?<<<

I'm claiming logic is the study of cause and effect for now, though that defnintion might not be compeletly accurate...



>>>This is totally unbased and assumed.<<<

It is based on logic. Only logic is assumed :)


>>>These are two things which atheism is supposed to account for, but cops it out as assumptions.<<<

Logic is the study cause and effect(though I came to that conclusion logically, which is why we have to assume logic). That human senses work is a logical induction.


>>>Where did sentience come from? Why did a universe which was formerly governed by randomness suddenly spawn separate wills and sentience?<<<

I have already said that the universe is NOT governed by randomness. :p

It is "governed" by natural forces, of which we do not know the origin as of yet.

Under my view, sentience is a complex chemical reaction in your brain and we have no real free-will, but we do have the illusion of free will.

>>>And where did any of those three things come from? Human beings don't exist; it's all just a bunch of particles and energy in motion through space!<<<

Huh? This sentence doesn't make sense....you just said humans didn't exist, and then right after that you said humans were made of particles and energy...

Why does it matter what humans are made of?


>>>There are no people, wills, self-benefits, evolutionary instincts, social contracts, etc., etc.<<<

Evolution: cause and effect

Will for self-benefit: From evolution, those who want to benefit themselves are more likely to survive than those, for example, who give away all their food. ;)

Social contract: an unwritten agreement between people for mutual benefit that basically says "I won't attack you if you won't attack me."



Make sense now? :)

Karen

[DaveJes1979]

You know, Karen, it would have been perfectly respectable (and more than understandable) for you simply to say "OK, Dave, I think we both have made our cases. I don't think much can be gained by continuing on now." I realize that these things cannot continue ad infinitum.

But saying "You win. You have shouted the loudest....I have shown your argument to be invalid several times now....etc etc." is simply a cop-out.

I have done more than "shouted", I have offered a rational, point-by-point response. You also charge that I don't listen to your arguments, and that I keep bringing up things you have already refuted. Well, since I offer a virtually point-by-point response, I have a hard time seeing how I "don't listen." And I have tried to exhaustively address all of your "refutations". I don't know anything that I haven't provided some answer for. What exactly did you "refute" that I ignored or couldn't address meaningfully? It is a specious generalization to simply say "I refuted many of your points".

In any case, I will go ahead and end it here if you'd like. I understand if you don't want to keep responding forever.

But I actually intende to interact with Chrstians, originally, as well as non-Christians. I wish this thread had seen more interaction besides just Karen's arguments.

I would kindly ask everyone here (mustbenothing and Karen) to continue the conversation elsewhere unless it has to do with the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (the name of this thread). I would like to keep the issues focused in case others decide to join in.

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

[Chrysostom]

Originally posted by DaveJes1979
I would kindly ask everyone here (mustbenothing and Karen) to continue the conversation elsewhere unless it has to do with the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (the name of this thread). I would like to keep the issues focused in case others decide to join in.i'm trying to argue it. Please tell me what i'm doing wrong (help always of use ;))

[Chrysostom]

>>Christians must also assume logic first in their worldview. Even Descartes had to assume logic worked before he could come up with "I think, therefore I am." Christians must assume logic works, then they must read a Bible and come to what is, from their point of view, a logical conclusion that it is true, and because the Bible is true and the Bible mentions God, THEN they can assume God. :)<<

God is the basis for the worldview (therefore considered a premise, i believe). This worldview accounts for everything which exists, and is therefore consistent.

>>Also, you have only claimed that logic, or at least the perception of logic, comes from God; you have not proven that said logic WORKS. :)<<

i'm really not sure what this means...

[Chrysostom]

>>Anything that isn't supernatural<<

What is "supernatural?"

>>Wrong. The atheistic worldview believes that we do not have enough evidence to decide what happened; though, as something just popping into existance sounds contradictory, I think we can rule that one out :) Basically, it could have been anything, but we should not just guess at what it was without evidence.<<

Two options:
1. Universe happened randomly
2. Universe was created

Atheism picks the first, as it opposes a Creator of any type. Therefore, atheism believes t