Atheism

Jeffrey · 09-15-2003, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

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

Well, that was the point of the first post...he thought his analogy was enough to disprove atheism.

dungscooperdave · 09-16-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

Yes. The materialist atheist presupposes the uniformity of nature.

The uniformity of nature is not a belief that is inherent to atheism. That is, it is possible to be an atheist and not believe in the uniformity of nature, since the uniformity of nature has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God exists, unless of course one is seeking to prove or disprove the existence of God based on a proof that assumes the uniformity of nature. This is why the uniformity of nature is irrelevant to this discussion.

JerryLove · 09-16-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

That proves that one fact about reality seems consistent with a theory of gravity. In no way does that prove a theory of gravity.

I specifically stated that this *did not* prove the nature of gravity, merely its existance.

Quote:

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

Circular and therefore irrellevent to anyone of any other worldview.

Quote:

and if i drop it, say, in space, gravity is not proven. your point is correct with a qualification

We all understand when and where this demonstration will and will not work. I was trying to establish a general fact (provability) not a specific test.

Quote:

as others have already pointed out, we start everything with some kind of presuppositions that cannot be proven.

Yep.

Quote:

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

It is a flaw which only exists in a Christian worldview. It is not internal and therefore irrellevent.

Quote:

Yes. The materialist atheist presupposes the uniformity of nature.

No, we assume it... not the same.

**slap_j** · 09-16-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

The uniformity of nature is not a belief that is inherent to atheism.

That's why I said "materialist". There are all kinds of atheists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No, we assume it... not the same.

Yeah, that's right. To presuppose is to require as a necessary antecedent. Like a creation presupposes a creator.

dungscooperdave · 09-16-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

That's why I said "materialist". There are all kinds of atheists.

So is it then possible that there is at least one worldview that does not presuppose anything?

Also, more explanation on the difference between presupposing and assuming would be very helpful.

**slap_j** · 09-16-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

So is it then possible that there is at least one worldview that does not presuppose anything?

They all assume something.

Quote:

Also, more explanation on the difference between presupposing and assuming would be very helpful.

I explained presupposing, assuming would just be...taking an epistemic liberty.

Like, to be a materialist atheist (by materialist I mean: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena) does not require you to presuppose the uniformity of nature. Certain other things do. Scientific laws presuppose the uniformity of nature. Like, if you're going to say that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction...you have to presuppose, when you say "every action", that the future actions will be like the past actions (which is induction).

jesuswhoop07 · 09-16-2003, 02:52 PM

my fault i meant to as Gaunilo's argument, Kants arguemnet was too rich for my blood i could seem to get a grasp on what he said, maybe someone sould explain it so i dont fail Philosophy.

**Sean** · 09-16-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

So is it then possible that there is at least one worldview that does not presuppose anything?

If there was a worldview that did not presuppose anything, it would be illogical to believe it. At some level you have to presuppose something.

**Chrysostom** · 09-16-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesuswhoop07

my fault i meant to as Gaunilo's argument, Kants arguemnet was too rich for my blood i could seem to get a grasp on what he said, maybe someone sould explain it so i dont fail Philosophy.

In tough terms: Kant said that the Ontological Argument is trying to treat existence as a predicate, but it fails because existence is a prerequisite for predication. In other words, it would be circular, because it would have to presuppose that God exists, since otherwise giving God a predicate is worthless.

Travis · 09-16-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

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

But "we'll just have to do it anyway" isn't an answer to the problem! lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

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.

Exactly. Because we can account for universal laws within our worldview. Atheists cannot.

**Chrysostom** · 09-16-2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:

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?

The standards of proof and sufficiency must come from somewhere -- they must be presupposed.

Mugsy035 · 09-18-2003, 12:41 AM

has anyone clicked to link at the top of this page taking you to travesser.com. This Michael guy is claiming he is the second coming of Christ.

JerryLove · 09-18-2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Exactly. Because we can account for universal laws within our worldview. Atheists cannot.

That's bad when "universal laws" turn out not universal at all.

Either way, you presuppose them, I assume them. 6 of one, half-dozen of the other (how do you account for God's nature being unchanging? You don't you presuppose it). Welcome to presuppositional apologetics.

There is no internal consistancy problem with atheism. If you think that there is a problem from a Chrstian perspective, I don't care enough to argue it.

dungscooperdave · 09-18-2003, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

The standards of proof and sufficiency must come from somewhere -- they must be presupposed.

If all worldviews rely on certain assumptions, what advantage then has one worldview over another?

rainoflove · 09-19-2003, 08:11 AM

Quote:

how do you account for God's nature being unchanging? You don't you presuppose it

We don't presuppose God's nature being unchanging - we take his word for it. The only thing we've presupposed is his existance, and we've found him in Christianity and built a trusting relationship with him - so that when he calls himself the 'alpha' and 'omega' we know his not lying.

Quote:

If all worldviews rely on certain assumptions, what advantage then has one worldview over another?

If you're simply choosing a worldview because the one is advantagous over the other, then you're not choosing one based on truth, but rather on what you think is better for you.

I don't think that any one worldview could have a certain advantage, each has a certain downfall and advantage. However, not all of them could be true - either none of them are true, or one is.

However, just a thought: it seems Atheism cannot rely on truth because it has no foundation for truth. It really cannot claim to be the truth (but i don't think it ever does anyway)

Rain