[cchrisr]

((me previous))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

but if the demonstration does not always work, then the premise is not proven. so then, we assume it to be true and proven true if it were possible to do so.

Originally Posted by rainoflove

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.

we presuppose that God exists and what he says he is (in the bible) is absolutely true. from those assumptions, we infer that he is unchanging.

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.

more than one could be true (from what you have stated) and still not all of them would be true. an assumption i take is that at least one is false--maybe all (which is basically what you said). another commonly held assumption in worldviews is: at least one is true & no more than one is true (so that one and only one is true)--and of course, the person saying that believes his is that one.

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)

sure it does: the truth is that there is no god(s)/ess(es). some do have absolute morality (zazen, for instance), others do not (hinduism--even though they do have high morals, i don't think they hold them completely absolutely).

[JerryLove]

but if the demonstration does not always work, then the premise is not proven. so then, we assume it to be true and proven true if it were possible to do so.

You are staring at the tree and missing the forest. I cannot "baby down" my point here any more than I have. Please rearead and see if you understand. If you do not, there's no point wasting time on the rest of this discussion since you are too tied up in minutia to follow simple ideas

[cchrisr]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are staring at the tree and missing the forest. I cannot "baby down" my point here any more than I have. Please rearead and see if you understand. If you do not, there's no point wasting time on the rest of this discussion since you are too tied up in minutia to follow simple ideas

my take on this part of the thread:
me: nothing can be totally proven without assuming something first (God, gravity, the green chalkboard, etc).
you: well, you can prove gravity by dropping something
me: not in space, so therefore gravity is not proven.
you: in some demonstrations, we know that this will not work--we are focusing on provability
me: if the demonstration does not work, then it is not proven
you: sorry, but i cannot "baby down" my point anymore.

i don't see the logical connection between my last reply and your last reply. please enlighten this less-abled mind.

[JerryLove]

I have not denied the requirement of presuppositions to even have the word "proof" have meaning. But you did not appear to be arguing presupposition.

Because if you were arguing presuppositions, your "what about in space" retort makes no sense. You should have said "you can't prove the object existed, much less that it fell", or something similar.

[cchrisr]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Because if you were arguing presuppositions, your "what about in space" retort makes no sense. You should have said "you can't prove the object existed, much less that it fell", or something similar.

quite true, but 'tis not the only way.

[nolidad]

Ihave read carefuuly through this thread and to the beleivers here trying to answer the problem of whether we can prove the existence of God epistemolgically or ontologically: The answer is a most resounding NO! Frasncis Shaeffer and the powerful Christian philosophers nonethteless.

1 Cor. Lets us know that the natural man cannot perceive the things of God so philosophically a person will never discover the nature of God.

Romans 1:20 is clear that the unseen characteristics of God can be understodd by the things which He created EVEN HIS ETERNAL POWER AND GODHEAD. So that they are without excuse. Psalms says the the foll says in his heart, there is no God.


Conclusion? If the God of the Bible is true and true God as we Christians know Him to be then atheists are that way because of decisions to reject that which they know to be true and choose against the evidence to accpet a false concept. Philosophy and ontology cannot repair this.

[cchrisr]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Conclusion? If the God of the Bible is true and true God as we Christians know Him to be then atheists are that way because of decisions to reject that which they know to be true and choose against the evidence to accpet a false concept. Philosophy and ontology cannot repair this.

imagine you have a group of blind people (born this way from birth). add on top of that that they *think* they see (to the point where they all agree on what they "see"). how do you (being someone who *can* see) convince them that they are blind? read ray bradbury's martian chronicles.

[rainoflove]

we presuppose that God exists and what he says he is (in the bible) is absolutely true. from those assumptions, we infer that he is unchanging

Hold on, i still don't think I agree here...

To 'presuppose' something is something right on the beginning. I may assume that the Bible is absolutely true, but how do I PREsuppose it? At any rate, most people come to believe that the Bible is true either through experience/revelation/faith or trial and error. But, they don't just presuppose it. I don't think i do, anyway. I was quite often skeptic about alot of the Bible, until I researched it historically. By the historical evidence, my faith in the Bible is complete.

Or, we presuppose that a god or god(s) exist and find Christianity fits (our) logic the best, then-- we have not presupposed Christianity is true, we've only presupposed the existance of God ... ?

more than one could be true (from what you have stated) and still not all of them would be true. an assumption i take is that at least one is false--maybe all (which is basically what you said). another commonly held assumption in worldviews is: at least one is true & no more than one is true (so that one and only one is true)--and of course, the person saying that believes his is that one.

I don't understand why more than one could be true-- if we're dealing with truth, we're dealing with an absolute. If more than one is true, then they are essentially the same worldview. Truth can only be absolute, it can't be a non-absolute because then it isn't really true.

For instance, am I male? True or False (the answer is true.) I can't be female at the same time, else the question would be false.

sure it does: the truth is that there is no god(s)/ess(es). some do have absolute morality (zazen, for instance), others do not (hinduism--even though they do have high morals, i don't think they hold them completely absolutely).

I'm not sure how hinduism fell under athiesm there... ?

Anyway, if athiesm claims that 'the truth is, there is no God' then on what basis do they say this? How has this proven to be true to them? how has it proven to be true universally? And what evidence do they have for this? And, back to those absolutes again...

Rain

[cchrisr]

Originally Posted by rainoflove

Hold on, i still don't think I agree here...

To 'presuppose' something is something right on the beginning. I may assume that the Bible is absolutely true, but how do I PREsuppose it? At any rate, most people come to believe that the Bible is true either through experience/revelation/faith or trial and error. But, they don't just presuppose it. I don't think i do, anyway. I was quite often skeptic about alot of the Bible, until I researched it historically. By the historical evidence, my faith in the Bible is complete.

Or, we presuppose that a god or god(s) exist and find Christianity fits (our) logic the best, then-- we have not presupposed Christianity is true, we've only presupposed the existance of God ... ?

being that "therefore, the Bible is true" is never a conclusion, it is a premise and a (provisional) assumption(ie, a presuppostion).

I don't understand why more than one could be true-- if we're dealing with truth, we're dealing with an absolute. If more than one is true, then they are essentially the same worldview. Truth can only be absolute, it can't be a non-absolute because then it isn't really true.

if truth is disjunctive, then you're absolutely right. if it is conjunctive, then as niels bohr said, "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." and i also ask this: how do you know exactly what "absolute truth" is?

For instance, am I male? True or False (the answer is true.) I can't be female at the same time, else the question would be false.

in that example, yes you are right. don't forget though, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. light is both a wave and a particle. opposites that are both true.

I'm not sure how hinduism fell under athiesm there... ?

i forget to say "some religions"...my bad.

Anyway, if athiesm claims that 'the truth is, there is no God' then on what basis do they say this? How has this proven to be true to them? how has it proven to be true universally? And what evidence do they have for this? And, back to those absolutes again...

i was showing that atheism does have absolutes (contrary to popular belief). one way they state it: remove the assumption that "God exists" and everything still works (so therefore, God is unnecessary). ie - apply ockham's (or occam's) razor.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

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

One is true.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

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

One is true.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by rainoflove

Anyway, if athiesm claims that 'the truth is, there is no God' then on what basis do they say this? How has this proven to be true to them? how has it proven to be true universally? And what evidence do they have for this? And, back to those absolutes again...
Rain

Atheists claim that the evidence for their belief is the total lack of evidence for theism. Thus, since, in their opinion, there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a god, there is simply no reason to believe in one (Ockham's Razor as mentioned previously).

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

One is true.

What methodology do you propose for discrening truth from falsehood, and why is this one better than a naturalist atheist's methodology?

[cchrisr]

[QUOTE=dungscooperdave]Atheists claim that the evidence for their belief is the total lack of evidence for theism. Thus, since, in their opinion, there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a god, there is simply no reason to believe in one (Ockham's Razor as mentioned previously).[QUOTE]
which, if i am not mistaken, is an argumentum ad ignoratium...

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by cchrisr

which, if i am not mistaken, is an argumentum ad ignoratium...

Do you believe that martians exist?

[JerryLove]

I don't believe Athiest's properly belive "there is no God", but rather simply do not believe there is. I certainly fall into the latter boat, not the former... and unless someone wants to come forward and assert the "there definately is not any sort of God", let's not hack at that straw-man.