[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by Travis

Ok, if I drop something now and it falls, how do I know the same thing will happen again two minutes from now? How do we know the future will be like the past? To say it has always been that way in the past is to beg the question. To be able to generalize to the future would require universal laws, something for which the atheistic world-view cannot account.

Are you familiar with Hume's An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding? Do you know how to resolve the problems he set forth therin? He argued that we have no philosophical reason for assuming the future will be like the past whatsoever, thus undermining the fundamental principles of science.

Of course, Hume himself answered this question. While we realize that it is not logically correct to reason inductively, we also realize that such deductions are necessary to everday life, and that, while we cannot know for certain that these things will continue to occur the way they always have, such inferences are our natural instinct and are necessary to live in this world.
The real question is, if we know that God exists now, how can we know that the same God will exist two minutes from now?

But, as Jerry has already stated, this is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

The real question is, if we know that God exists now, how can we know that the same God will exist two minutes from now?

If you hold the Christian theistic worldview...then you know by means of divine revelation.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

We've got to be pretty careful when we start to get into this kind of question, because we're dealing with ultimate standards here. The Christian conceives of God as holding or being the ultimate standard of truth, reality, morality, and so on. Thus, if the Christian is correct, it will be impossible for him to prove anything (especially the existence of God) apart from tacitly relying upon the existence of God.

Also, a strict application of the standard you offered above was Descartes' problem that led to many failed epistemologies up through Kant, then caused great fallout afterwards, especially thanks to Nietzsche. If we ultimately rely on our independent intellects to get all knowledge -- in other words, if we universally maintain the "show me" standard -- we will get nowhere. I'll give you a quick example in Hume's Problem of Induction (problems like this spring up everywhere, but this is the most classic).

As two believers discussing this, sure...but when you're discussing with atheists they will rest on the need for the theist to shoulder the burden of proof.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by slap_j

If you hold the Christian theistic worldview...then you know by means of divine revelation.

And how do you know that your revelation is divine?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

And how do you know that your revelation is divine?

That's a fundamental assumption of the Christian theistic worldview.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Starboard Wake

As two believers discussing this, sure...but when you're discussing with atheists they will rest on the need for the theist to shoulder the burden of proof.

If they expect me to convince them, sure I hold the burden of proof.

[jesuswhoop07]

thanks to everyone who replied i will deifenitely journal and use some of this info.

But Kants arguement is cannot disprove Anselms for one simple reason. Kant uses the same basic systematical rational inquery that anselm does except inserts, "an island " istead of God. Kant loses credibility for his statement, b/c he turned his arguement into a finite object. Anselms arguement on what makes something greater or better is based on wisdom, moral goodness, and other admirable qualities. Kant refers to his "island" as being greater b/c of size. It would be like if i said, " a hockey player in which none greater can be concieved", what would he have to do to be the best? What is perfection? An integer can always be greater than the previos, 1,2,3,4,5....INFINITI. So kant says that if anselms arguement is right then an island which none greater is possible, his arguement is wrong, b/c an islnad can always be greater or bigger. Kant tries to Reductio ad absurdem Anselm but controdicts himself.

I will admit anselms arguement has its faults but it all comes down to his def. of god "That which none greater can be concieved" which i believe to be true after the systematic rational inquery of Anselm

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by slap_j

That's a fundamental assumption of the Christian theistic worldview.

Ass-U-Me

[cchrisr]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Drop something... Gravity is proven. You can now proceed to argue what gravity is, but to deny it's existance is absurd.

and if i drop it, say, in space, gravity is not proven. your point is correct with a qualification: on a planet (or other given location with a large enough mass to attract the something without also causing it to budge).
as others have already pointed out, we start everything with some kind of presuppositions that cannot be proven.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by jesuswhoop07

But Kants arguement is cannot disprove Anselms for one simple reason.

You're talking about Gaunilo's objection, not Kant's

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

Ass-U-Me

All worldviews make certain fundamental assumptions.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by slap_j

All worldviews make certain fundamental assumptions.

Even a weak-atheistic/agnostic worldview that only believes in what is proven or in what has sufficient evidence for belief?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

Of course, Hume himself answered this question.

No he didn't. He never gave a philosophical justification. Quite the contrary; he argued that there is none. He basically just admitted that we have to infer anyway.

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

But, as Jerry has already stated, this is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.

A huge flaw in atheism is irrelevant to a discussion of atheism? That's convinient.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by Travis

No he didn't. He never gave a philosophical justification. Quite the contrary; he argued that there is none. He basically just admitted that we have to infer anyway.

I never said he gave a philosophical justification. I said he answered the question, which you have just admitted.

A huge flaw in atheism is irrelevant to a discussion of atheism? That's convinient.

How is the matter of the integrity of inductive reasoning exclusive to atheism? Last time I checked, theists as well as atheists believed that inductive reasoning was to be relied upon to make at least some decisions in every day life. You do believe in the law of gravity, don't you? Or are you willing to chance it by jumping off a cliff simply because you cannot logically infer that gravity will always be in effect?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

Even a weak-atheistic/agnostic worldview that only believes in what is proven or in what has sufficient evidence for belief?

Yes. The materialist atheist presupposes the uniformity of nature.