[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, I suppose now that you point it out, the Martian thing is kind of a distorted representation of a theists claims. So I guess I'll have to drop that arguement. It does serve to point out the atheist's point of view, though.

[JerryLove]

Actually, I was disagreeing with the assertion that the atheist position is an "appeal to ignorance" by disagreeing with the assertation that an athiest believes "there is no God". This is not, generally speaking, a true claim; so arguments which presuppose it are irrellevent.

[dungscooperdave]

Oh.
Well then maybe I'll keep my Martian question.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Previously, I

One is true.

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

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

I would propose transcendental necessity. What are the preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience?

The atheist bases himself upon the autonomy of the human intellect. The human mind is the final criterion of knowledge to him. Many Christians have attempted to do this -- Aquinas, for instance. Many other Christians have been more consistent in this area -- Augustine or Calvin, for instance. If the assumption of autonomy is a correct assumption (thus correct methodology), it must be the case that either the Christian God does not exist, or is not a necessary concerns regarding epistemology. Therefore, if the Christian is right that the Christian God exists, the non-Christian's assumption of the autonomy of the human mind will ultimately be his epistemological downfall. For, the Christian claims that we are merely creatures, not the Creator; we are, therefore, dependent upon our Creator.

There are three ways in which the non-Christian may work an autonomous epistemology. First, he may say that the human mind is fully competent to serve as its own criterion of truth. Yet, this rational scheme cannot account for everything, because the human mind is finite, not having God's abilities. Those in this tradition must deny or ignore those limits of their finitude (e.g., the Logical Postivists' rejection of metaphysics) and halt at worthless knowledge (e.g., Descartes's cogito), thus failing to provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of human thought and experience.

Second, he may say that the human mind is incompetent. Though sounding humble, this is an inconsistent position; for, one must herein require the competency of the human mind in order to claim to know that the mind is incompetent! Thus, this view fails.

Third, he may say that the human mind is partly competent and partly incompetent. While tempting, this only compounds the above problems. Kant, for instance, was forced to require that we have knowledge of the unknowable realm (e.g., that it is unknowable), and deny that we ultimately have knowledge of the things in the knowable realm.

The Biblical Christian, on the other hand, has an infinite God who is absolutely competent, for He knows and controls all things. The Christian can have knowledge of his own incompetence, the failure of the autonomy of his own intellect, because of God's revelation to him. He who is ultimately competent condescends to bring light to the incompetent. The Christian's competence is thus derived from God's revelation, creation, and providence.

The Christian position is proved, then, on the basis of its inescapability. We cannot start with our own autonomy, as all non-Christian thought must do; we are dependent upon the Creator.

[cchrisr]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually, I was disagreeing with the assertion that the atheist position is an "appeal to ignorance" by disagreeing with the assertation that an athiest believes "there is no God". This is not, generally speaking, a true claim; so arguments which presuppose it are irrellevent.

the argumentum ad ignoratium is such that the lack of evidence for a proof does not count as a disproof (and vice versa). the lack of evidence to prove the loch ness monster (or martians) is not a disproof in and of itself. the fact that there has been no scientific observations (jim bob on his fishing boat does not count) of the loch ness monster (and little green men from mars) is support for a disproof, but just stating that one will not be sufficient.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by cchrisr

the argumentum ad ignoratium is such that the lack of evidence for a proof does not count as a disproof (and vice versa). the lack of evidence to prove the loch ness monster (or martians) is not a disproof in and of itself. the fact that there has been no scientific observations (jim bob on his fishing boat does not count) of the loch ness monster (and little green men from mars) is support for a disproof, but just stating that one will not be sufficient.

The real question remains, though, why believe in a being whose existence we have not experienced or witnessed in any way?

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

I would propose transcendental necessity. What are the preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience?

The atheist bases himself upon the autonomy of the human intellect. The human mind is the final criterion of knowledge to him. Many Christians have attempted to do this -- Aquinas, for instance. Many other Christians have been more consistent in this area -- Augustine or Calvin, for instance. If the assumption of autonomy is a correct assumption (thus correct methodology), it must be the case that either the Christian God does not exist, or is not a necessary concerns regarding epistemology. Therefore, if the Christian is right that the Christian God exists, the non-Christian's assumption of the autonomy of the human mind will ultimately be his epistemological downfall. For, the Christian claims that we are merely creatures, not the Creator; we are, therefore, dependent upon our Creator.

There are three ways in which the non-Christian may work an autonomous epistemology. First, he may say that the human mind is fully competent to serve as its own criterion of truth. Yet, this rational scheme cannot account for everything, because the human mind is finite, not having God's abilities. Those in this tradition must deny or ignore those limits of their finitude (e.g., the Logical Postivists' rejection of metaphysics) and halt at worthless knowledge (e.g., Descartes's cogito), thus failing to provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of human thought and experience.

Second, he may say that the human mind is incompetent. Though sounding humble, this is an inconsistent position; for, one must herein require the competency of the human mind in order to claim to know that the mind is incompetent! Thus, this view fails.

Third, he may say that the human mind is partly competent and partly incompetent. While tempting, this only compounds the above problems. Kant, for instance, was forced to require that we have knowledge of the unknowable realm (e.g., that it is unknowable), and deny that we ultimately have knowledge of the things in the knowable realm.

The Biblical Christian, on the other hand, has an infinite God who is absolutely competent, for He knows and controls all things. The Christian can have knowledge of his own incompetence, the failure of the autonomy of his own intellect, because of God's revelation to him. He who is ultimately competent condescends to bring light to the incompetent. The Christian's competence is thus derived from God's revelation, creation, and providence.

The Christian position is proved, then, on the basis of its inescapability. We cannot start with our own autonomy, as all non-Christian thought must do; we are dependent upon the Creator.

I think I'm going to concede here as I think you've established pretty clearly that all worldviews are entirely circular.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

The real question remains, though, why believe in a being whose existence we have not experienced or witnessed in any way?

I'm sorry that I missed this question, because it's absolutely crucial. I would pose the opposite question right back at you: Is it really the case that we have not experienced or witnessed the existence of God?

I am firmly convinced that every fact is a proof of God's existence. The mere fact that there are facts demonstrates God's existence. The fact that torturing babies for fun is evil demonstrates God's existence. The heavens declare His glory, and the earth His majesty. Is it really the case that we have not experienced or witnessed God's existence? You think not, I think so. But, no matter the case, we certainly cannot claim that the Christian thinks that we are to believe in the existence of God with no justification whatsoever.

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Romans 1:18-21
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

[dungscooperdave]

Something I discovered from some discussions I've been having on a different website recently - Is it possible that everyone is really an atheist, just to different degrees? For example, the Christian is theistic towards the Christian God, but he is atheistic towards all the other gods, such as Allah, Baal, Zeus,etc., thus making him almost entirely atheistic. In fact it has often been asserted by atheists that if a theist were to simply realize why he didn't believe in everyone else's gods, then he would suddenly realize why the atheist doesn't believe in any gods at all.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

Something I discovered from some discussions I've been having on a different website recently - Is it possible that everyone is really an atheist, just to different degrees? For example, the Christian is theistic towards the Christian God, but he is atheistic towards all the other gods, such as Allah, Baal, Zeus,etc., thus making him almost entirely atheistic. In fact it has often been asserted by atheists that if a theist were to simply realize why he didn't believe in everyone else's gods, then he would suddenly realize why the atheist doesn't believe in any gods at all.

Of course, that's what rationalists, humanists, atheists, secularists, and so on believe. But, the Christian is firmly convinced that all the other "gods" are just idols invented by men as an attempt to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Indeed, the Christians conceive of God as being the absolute personality. All other religions either affirm neither, or affirm one to the exclusion or loss of the other. Zeus is quite personal, but not absolute. Spinoza's god was quite absolute, but not personal. They're trying to replace the true God, but always fail to some extent. Their idols all fall before the Creator.

Is the Christian in any sense an atheist? No. He doesn't make the claim that it is not the case that God exists. He is an a-Allahist. He is an a-Zeusist. But, he is not an a-theist. He is a monotheist: one deity exists, and it is not the case that any other deities exist.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

The real question remains, though, why believe in a being whose existence we have not experienced or witnessed in any way?

That's the way I feel about Proton's! And Quarks!!! And frankly, I'm only partially leaning toward the existance of New Zealand.....

(I'm kidding of course! Though I DO think that we take ALL sorts of things that we have not experienced or witnessed as believeable all the time. I liken belief in God as something similar. Though I have never SEEN an electron, I know they're there. I can see their effect in my everyday life now that I know to look for them. And while I may never get a 6 year old to see the evidence I see, that doesn't invalidate electrons in the least.)

Jake

[adipiscor]

Originally Posted by JakeW

That's the way I feel about Proton's! And Quarks!!! And frankly, I'm only partially leaning toward the existance of New Zealand.....

(I'm kidding of course! Though I DO think that we take ALL sorts of things that we have not experienced or witnessed as believeable all the time. I liken belief in God as something similar. Though I have never SEEN an electron, I know they're there. I can see their effect in my everyday life now that I know to look for them. And while I may never get a 6 year old to see the evidence I see, that doesn't invalidate electrons in the least.)

That's a different sort of thing, however. A scientific fact differs greatly from a theological fact. For example, doubt in a scientific fact (electrons, say) requires you to, rationally, dispense with more than that singular fact (all theory that would predict electons/rely on electrons). Doubt in a theological being is rather theory-independent especially in the modern world-view. Most theories don't need God at all, and the ones that do are built over God (as in, he's not a product of a theory; the theories are a 'product' of belief in God).

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by adipiscor

That's a different sort of thing, however. A scientific fact differs greatly from a theological fact. For example, doubt in a scientific fact (electrons, say) requires you to, rationally, dispense with more than that singular fact (all theory that would predict electons/rely on electrons). Doubt in a theological being is rather theory-independent especially in the modern world-view. Most theories don't need God at all, and the ones that do are built over God (as in, he's not a product of a theory; the theories are a 'product' of belief in God).

I can see how what you are saying applies to (sorta) electrons. But we didn't always know electrons were there. Try imagineing when electrons were first concieved, consider when any subatomic particle was concieved. There wasn't a slew of corraberating evidence that would need to be explained away with back then. At some point someone said electrons make sense, THEN came the bits about proof of it. And the proof of it was not even dreamt about until after the electrons were. If it makes you feel better lets use dark matter instead of electrons.
As for the last bit about theories are a product of a belief in God, all scientific facts work that way. First hypothesis (there are electrons) then test to see if you're right.... first comes belief in electrons, second comes theories.... Maybe you could explain the differences between facts differently for me? I don't see any difference at all.

Jake

[adipiscor]

Originally Posted by JakeW

I can see how what you are saying applies to (sorta) electrons. But we didn't always know electrons were there. Try imagineing when electrons were first concieved, consider when any subatomic particle was concieved. There wasn't a slew of corraberating evidence that would need to be explained away with back then. At some point someone said electrons make sense, THEN came the bits about proof of it. And the proof of it was not even dreamt about until after the electrons were. If it makes you feel better lets use dark matter instead of electrons.

There was some practical evidence that would need to be explained away. And if you were to reject that evidence (for reasons other than 'lack of evidence' at this p.i.t.), then it would just be special pleading if you didn't reject a mass of other scientific theories as well which rely on the same method of investigation.

Originally Posted by JakeW

As for the last bit about theories are a product of a belief in God, all scientific facts work that way. First hypothesis (there are electrons) then test to see if you're right.... first comes belief in electrons, second comes theories.... Maybe you could explain the differences between facts differently for me? I don't see any difference at all.

The concept of an 'electron' is pretty random. A cave man, say, would not question "are there electrons?" The hypothesis, really, is a product of many other theories that someone has about the world. The traditional Christian God isn't really a product of theories about the world; it's a basic notion regarding the essence of the world.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by adipiscor

The concept of an 'electron' is pretty random. A cave man, say, would not question "are there electrons?" The hypothesis, really, is a product of many other theories that someone has about the world. The traditional Christian God isn't really a product of theories about the world; it's a basic notion regarding the essence of the world.

Well here I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. My God is definitly a product of theories about the world which I struggled with. (Its a hugely long story, but if youre interested its in a thread called How do you know in this very apologetics forum.) And I don't see how you came to the conclusion that electron (to use the example) are anything less a basic notion regarding the essence of the world, in this case matter.....

Jake