Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

DaveJes1979 · 12-05-2001, 12:33 AM

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 · 12-05-2001, 12:37 AM

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 · 12-05-2001, 01:31 AM

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

Karen

DaveJes1979 · 12-05-2001, 01:55 AM

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 · 12-05-2001, 09:12 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 12-05-2001, 12:33 PM

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 · 12-05-2001, 12:52 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

By Karen
When 6,000 people die it is immoral because it detrements everyone.

Quote:

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 · 12-05-2001, 12:59 PM

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 · 12-05-2001, 01:10 PM

Hey Karen

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Also, I ment everyone within the "group," which in this case was the US and its allies.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

Quote:

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 · 12-05-2001, 01:25 PM

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 · 12-05-2001, 01:28 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 12-05-2001, 01:40 PM

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 · 12-05-2001, 03:44 PM

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 · 12-05-2001, 04:41 PM

Long winded isn't he?

Karen M · 12-05-2001, 04:50 PM

>>>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.