[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or, I might should have said ancestry instead of lineage. [/quote]You don’t really think I would pick on you for something like this? You do greatly err if you believe that I do not hold considerable respect for most of the people I utterly disagree with here. Ya really don’t get it man. Which should be perfectly clear to me since it’s what I’m always saying, but it is still admittedly frustrating if I let it be. I can’t help what you believe, but I really do only want good for all you guys.
[/quote]
I didn’t think you’d jump on the error, I just realized I might have used a word incorrectly.
Also, I hope you know we all really want the best for you as well.
Their efficacy just brings me discomfort because of their usually straw man like qualities.[/quote]
They’re only straw men inasmuch as Christianity is an utterly meaningless term.
Sure, my pointing out that christians believe in an impossible creation theory is a straw man when you can suddenly change the rules to allow christians to believe in evolution instead of spontaneous generation.
[/quote]
Sir, I have never believed in a spontaneous generation.
I’m Catholic, big difference between fundamentalist and Catholics.
Yeah, that is a heresy. There is a Hell, but I’m not going to threaten you with Hell to manipulate you. That’s a fallacy, I forget the name, but it’s blunt like strong arm fallacy or some crazy name.
Well they should. They can call it whatever, they want. However, the concept is true.
We accept gay people, we tolerate gays acting out. However, we do not accept gays acting out. I know weird, but it is how it is. And, let the chips fall were they may. I have been guilty for some backwards thinking. However, being gay is no more of a sin than being an alcoholic. So, why this riff raff about the gays being horrible and focusing on them isn’t going to recognize their humanity. If people want to start on the road to redemption, instead of attacking the symptoms, maybe we should attack the source of the problem. Building stronger families. Families, you can be illiterate, rich, dumb, smart, intelligent, poor, middle-class, whatever you want to be. If you’re family unit is weak you’re going to have a bunch of other problems that is going to be more than just people being gay.
I also suggest that families have meals together. That is the starting point, like the corner stone of the family. A family that eats together…I don’t know…stays strong together or whatever. Three meals a week keeps the shrink away.
That is the most retarded (not to you, but the person that said that). I’m being a little uncharitable just because of how bad people’s education is.
The best way (I have heard) to understand God’s all knowingness. Think of a mural were the artist paints a 100 year history of a town or something. So, the artist starts on the left and paints to the right, starting form the beginning of the towns history to now. He paints the different people, the different events, etc. So, when the artist is done. He has painted a time frame (100 years) with the different people of this town, the different events, all encompassed in this one mural.
Now, image that, except the mural has a time frame of 13.5 billion years and encompasses the whole universe. The concept boggles our minds, but that is about as close as I can get to the idea in human terms without going into mentally picturing everything.
Eh, I’ll stick with he’s omniscient…all the time.
[quote]
I agree with Forlife. Too many different interpretations of the same thing, many of which directly contradict each other, make it meaningless. To be Christian means nothing when it could mean you either agree or disagree with so many really important topics.[/quote]
Well, that is why I like the grand title, the supreme hatee, the name of my Mother Church, Catholic.
I’d think being an atheist, it would be nice to argue against the Catholic Church. Because if you come argue with us, and then you argue with us in fifteen days, fifteen months, fifteen years, fifteen hundred years, we’ll hold the same truths. More developed likely, more refined, but the same truths.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, you’re still not addressing my point.
I’m glad you acknowledge that you don’t have actual evidence for your beliefs. That is a step in the right direction.
However, you still haven’t shown why YOUR faith is any more valid than the faith of Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
You’re taking the position that your is faith is correct, because god has spiritually saved you, because your faith is correct.
Do you see the quandary here?
Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses use the identical logic to support their own faith. You’re not differentiating your standard for knowing the truth from their standard for knowing the truth. They have the same faith you do, yet they reach different conclusions.
They have prayed, they believe that god has spoken the truth to their hearts, they have accepted Jesus as their Savior, and they are 100% convinced that they have the truth. Just like you.
So who is right?
What standard can you offer for knowing the truth that separates you from them? They believe god has chosen them and saved them, too.[/quote]
Catholic…eh…no. I don’t think God has spoken the truth to my heart. I’m not so prideful. The reason I know my faith is the truth…proof that it’s been chugging along for 2000 years. And, if Christ set up his Church, then this is the one he set up.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yep, pretty much is. Which you cannot rationally accept because you worship rationality being in bondage to sin and death, in other words self.
[/quote]
You admit this even though it is catastrophic to your worldview?
Also, I don’t worship rationality.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Come now my friend. Not being a man who worships rationality I don’t look there for ultimate answers.
[/quote]
This is called a strawman. I do not worship rationality nor do I think I have ultimate answers. You are attempting to make this my position so that you can attack it rather then deal with what I’ve brought up.
My point is that your worldview borrows from the non theists worldview (actually some theists share some of this stuff, so your worldview would borrow from theirs as well) in order to deny it.
You are simply handwaving the objection away, which is fine - believe as you wish - but it’s kind of odd when you continually make the same claims even though you can’t reasonably make them.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
See how idiotic that is? Everybody else does. Please don’t take me the wrong way, but just like every other divine truth, you are unavoidably bound to approach presuppositionalism (we can call it transcendentalism if you like) through YOUR OWN presupposition of the supreme autonomy of self.
[/quote]
This is what presuppostionalists do - when they encounter an internal critique of their worldview, they obfuscate and/or ignore it. You have to presuppose your own autonomous reason - it’s unavoidable. That is why you haven’t put forth a rational rebuttal to what I wrote, all you’ve done is reassert what you already believe.
That’s fine, but anyone can see that internally your worldview is in conflict.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
To you that is just the most basic of givens. You’re in large company too because that is the very essence of the sinful fallen intellect shared by every last descendant of father Adam. Including me.
[/quote]
See, this is just you reasserting your position. You aren’t dealing with the fact that you have to presuppose autonomous reason in order to determine which revelations from God to accept! Your worldview falls appart since you also presuppose that you can’t do this.
Hence, as a coherentist, your epistemology is destroyed.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The difference between you and I has nothing to do with me. I was raised from death to life while I was yet dead in sin and an enemy of God fully deserving of His wrath.
[/quote]
Nah, the difference is that when I’m presented with something catastrophic to my worldview I feel as though I have to deal with it - either figure it out or reject my worldview. You seem to be comfortable with just ignoring it and repeating what you believe.
The entire selling point of presuppositionalism/the TAG/etc is that it is internally consistent and no other worldview is. This is the bottom line of Bahnsen’s TAG argument. There are, of course, other problems with it, but when taken to task, the presuppositionalists worldview is not internally consistent - as I have shown (actually I didn’t come up with any of this). Instead of answer this, you are ignoring it and simply repeating your stances.
It reminds me of Bahnsen’s response to the problem of evil. He tries to shift the burden of proof (which is standard fair in the TAG) by saying that atheists have the problem since we cannot (supposedly) ‘account’ for evil. Well, let’s say we can’t - that doesn’t magically make Bahnsen’s worldview consistent. The onus is still on him to provide a reason why evil is consistent with his worldview.
In a similar fashion, I’ve shown that you must presuppose autonomous reason in order for your worldview to get off the ground. You now have to either adjust your worldview or refute my argument. If you don’t, then your worldview is internally inconsistent and can be rejected as incoherent.
Personally, I originally found presuppositionalism refreshing. It put atheists on the defensive and brought up good questions. What I find off putting is that the majority of adherents are not interested in actually discussing or thinking about their position. They are simply satisfied with preaching their beliefs, without regard to criticism (internal or otherwise).
At the end of the day, God is not required for a consistent worldview. In fact, it seems to me that every attempt to insert God as axiomatic fails spectacularly.
There is no need for a god. There is no evidence of a god. Everything beyond that is mental masturbation. [/quote]
Its not even that that gets me. “The universe was created by a sentient being”… ok, maybe. “A guy turned a stick into a snake”… dude, stfu.[/quote]
Sorry of my ignorance, but what is the snake to a stick or stick to a snake thing you are talking about?[/quote]
Exodus 7:8-12
8And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
9When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent.
10And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.
So, here you have THREE people turning sticks into snakes, TWO of which do it WITHOUT Gods help. Please, explain that. Did other Egyptions know magic?
There is no need for a god. There is no evidence of a god. Everything beyond that is mental masturbation. [/quote]
Its not even that that gets me. “The universe was created by a sentient being”… ok, maybe. “A guy turned a stick into a snake”… dude, stfu.[/quote]
Sorry of my ignorance, but what is the snake to a stick or stick to a snake thing you are talking about?[/quote]
Exodus 7:8-12
8And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
9When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent.
10And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.
So, here you have THREE people turning sticks into snakes, TWO of which do it WITHOUT Gods help. Please, explain that. Did other Egyptions know magic?[/quote]
This may sound like a total cop-out to you but the magicians were being helped by Satan and his demons which have certain powers yet as the plagues increase in magnitude they are unable to replicate them.
There is no need for a god. There is no evidence of a god. Everything beyond that is mental masturbation. [/quote]
Its not even that that gets me. “The universe was created by a sentient being”… ok, maybe. “A guy turned a stick into a snake”… dude, stfu.[/quote]
Sorry of my ignorance, but what is the snake to a stick or stick to a snake thing you are talking about?[/quote]
Exodus 7:8-12
8And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
9When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent.
10And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.
So, here you have THREE people turning sticks into snakes, TWO of which do it WITHOUT Gods help. Please, explain that. Did other Egyptions know magic?[/quote]
This may sound like a total cop-out to you but the magicians were being helped by Satan and his demons which have certain powers yet as the plagues increase in magnitude they are unable to replicate them.[/quote]
It is a total cop out. One minute its “Well he could do it because God made it happen, thats the only way it could!”
Now its: “Well, there are other ways it could happen, like through Satan.”
So, God sits back and lets Satan give people equally magic powers to the ones he grants?
See, now you have to come up with another cop out for that. Or we can just agree it never actually happened.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
This may sound like a total cop-out to you but the magicians were being helped by Satan and his demons which have certain powers yet as the plagues increase in magnitude they are unable to replicate them.[/quote]
Not necessarily a cop-out, but it is ad-hoc and completely unsupported by the texts. In other words, I see no reason to believe that this was the intended meaning of the text.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Also, I don’t worship rationality. <<<>>> you have to presuppose autonomous reason in order to determine which revelations from God to accept! Your worldview falls appart since you also presuppose that you can’t do this. >>>[/quote]Yes you do. [quote]Pangloss wrote:They are simply satisfied with preaching their beliefs, without regard to criticism (internal or otherwise). >>>[/quote]Pretty much. [quote]Pangloss wrote:At the end of the day, God is not required for a consistent worldview. In fact, it seems to me that every attempt to insert God as axiomatic fails spectacularly. >>>[/quote]The eternal cry of the worshiper of reason. Forgetting about Bahnsen for a minute (we shared a first name BTW), my position is that there are two world views. The Christian world view and the autonomous (sinful/fallen) worldview which expresses itself in every worldview that is not the Christian one. They’re all the same at bottom.
Attempting “proof” to an unbeliever is pointless and you are demonstrating exactly why. You will not, indeed cannot, reach with reason what can only be accessed by faith at which time reason is set free to function properly. To me this is the most laughably self evident fact, aside from the God who is it’s author, imaginable. To you it is unreasonable because you exalt reason in the place of God. You are utterly ill equipped to recognize the blasphemous assumption that whatever can’t fit between your ears cannot be true.
I openly reject that. I contend that if it CAN fit between your ears, or mine, it ain’t God. Whoever sarcastically remarked that “you have to assume my position to accept it’s truth” was exactly right.
I learned “presuppositionalism” with my bible (which same one I still have and use) in one hand and Van Til in the other over 20 years ago. I didn’t hear of Bahnsen until much later. Jesus raised me from the dead, John Calvin showed me how filthy I actually was and how mind numbingly awesome was the God I served and Van Til taught me how to think like all of that was actually true.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Also, I don’t worship rationality. <<<>>> you have to presuppose autonomous reason in order to determine which revelations from God to accept! Your worldview falls appart since you also presuppose that you can’t do this. >>>[/quote]Yes you do. [quote]Pangloss wrote:They are simply satisfied with preaching their beliefs, without regard to criticism (internal or otherwise). >>>[/quote]Pretty much. [quote]Pangloss wrote:At the end of the day, God is not required for a consistent worldview. In fact, it seems to me that every attempt to insert God as axiomatic fails spectacularly. >>>[/quote]The eternal cry of the worshiper of reason. Forgetting about Bahnsen for a minute (we shared a first name BTW), my position is that there are two world views. The Christian world view and the autonomous (sinful/fallen) worldview which expresses itself in every worldview that is not the Christian one. They’re all the same at bottom.
Attempting “proof” to an unbeliever is pointless and you are demonstrating exactly why. You will not, indeed cannot, reach with reason what can only be accessed by faith at which time reason is set free to function properly. To me this is the most laughably self evident fact, aside from the God who is it’s author, imaginable. To you it is unreasonable because you exalt reason in the place of God. You are utterly ill equipped to recognize the blasphemous assumption that whatever can’t fit between your ears cannot be true.
I openly reject that. I contend that if it CAN fit between your ears, or mine, it ain’t God. Whoever sarcastically remarked that “you have to assume my position to accept it’s truth” was exactly right.
I learned “presuppositionalism” with my bible (which same one I still have and use) in one hand and Van Til in the other over 20 years ago. I didn’t hear of Bahnsen until much later. Jesus raised me from the dead, John Calvin showed me how filthy I actually was and how mind numbingly awesome was the God I served and Van Til taught me how to think like all of that was actually true.
[/quote]
So… what you’re saying is; there’s really no point in talking to you?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
<<< So… what you’re saying is; there’s really no point in talking to you?[/quote]Not at all, but my answer will always be the same. You start with you. I start with God.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
<<< So… what you’re saying is; there’s really no point in talking to you?[/quote]Not at all, but my answer will always be the same. You start with you. I start with God.
[/quote]
Well, at least we cleared that up.
Apparently there is a point in talking to you… to get to hear (or read in this case) the same thing, over and over again. Sounds exciting. I can’t wait for more.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
<<< So… what you’re saying is; there’s really no point in talking to you?[/quote]Not at all, but my answer will always be the same. You start with you. I start with God.
[/quote]
Well, at least we cleared that up.
Apparently there is a point in talking to you… to get to hear (or read in this case) the same thing, over and over again. Sounds exciting. I can’t wait for more. [/quote]
Just wait till he decides the man in the sky wants you and your family dead. He’ll do your children the favor of saving them from a life of sin and delivering them to the Lord!
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
<<< So… what you’re saying is; there’s really no point in talking to you?[/quote]Not at all, but my answer will always be the same. You start with you. I start with God.
[/quote]
You start with made up bullshit and refuse to accept that it’s made up bullshit.
No, I don’t - unless you equivocate ‘worship’ into meaningless jibberish. Or is this another thing you are forced to presuppose?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The eternal cry of the worshiper of reason. Forgetting about Bahnsen for a minute (we shared a first name BTW), my position is that there are two world views. The Christian world view and the autonomous (sinful/fallen) worldview which expresses itself in every worldview that is not the Christian one. They’re all the same at bottom.
[/quote]
Actually I’m getting this from Clarke, a presuppositionalism. I figured my use of the term ‘axiomatic’ would have been a tip off. So it’s kind of funny that you are trying to smear me as worshipping reason when I’m using the tools that Clarke, a presupper, uses to attack non theistic worldviews.
I don’t know what you mean by worshipping reason - I suspect it’s simply inflammatory rhetoric since I’ve already shown that we all have to presuppose autonomous reason (despite your contradictory position that you don’t).
Also, no, there aren’t ‘two worldviews’. There isn’t even one consistent worldview. This is another claim that Van Til makes. Is this another thing you have to presuppose? Because, otherwise, it’s blatantly false.
Bahnsen tries to dissuaded the audience from thinking by claiming there are only two worldviews, Christian or non christian (Would mormonism fall under Christianity? Would Islam? How about deism? Solipism?), so that he can construct a deductive argument (the TAG). Then he attacks the strawman ‘non christian’ worldview, so that only his remains.
He does this so he doesn’t have to actually prove his worldview is consistent or true.
The fact is, the argument is invalid. There are multiple worldviews. A worldview is not simply made up of whether God exists or not. So at the end of the day, the TAG is abductive.
Which is why it fails and all justification for presuppositionalism goes down the drain.
I mean, look at what you are forced to try to smash together. Pantheism is now ‘the same’ as hinduism?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Attempting “proof” to an unbeliever is pointless and you are demonstrating exactly why. You will not, indeed cannot, reach with reason what can only be accessed by faith at which time reason is set free to function properly. To me this is the most laughably self evident fact, aside from the God who is it’s author, imaginable. To you it is unreasonable because you exalt reason in the place of God. You are utterly ill equipped to recognize the blasphemous assumption that whatever can’t fit between your ears cannot be true.
[/quote]
This is standard fare, it is parroted without understanding by the presuppositionalist. I’ve already shown that we both have the same starting point - we both have to presuppose autonomous reason.
You deny this but your denial is fluff - you haven’t actually accounted for the contradiction. Instead of dealing with this problem, you parrot Van Til.
Which shouldn’t even be convincing to you - but it is because the presuppositionalist is forced to believe DESPITE evidence and reason to the contrary. It is blind inconsistent faith.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I openly reject that. I contend that if it CAN fit between your ears, or mine, it ain’t God. Whoever sarcastically remarked that “you have to assume my position to accept it’s truth” was exactly right.
[/quote]
Yes, you say that, but you can’t give reason for it. You engage in what Bahnsen called vicious circularity. You have been hoisted upon your own petard.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I learned “presuppositionalism” with my bible (which same one I still have and use) in one hand and Van Til in the other over 20 years ago. I didn’t hear of Bahnsen until much later. Jesus raised me from the dead, John Calvin showed me how filthy I actually was and how mind numbingly awesome was the God I served and Van Til taught me how to think like all of that was actually true.
[/quote]
Seems like you wasted a lot of time. You have my condolences, I wouldn’t wish such blind dogmaticism in the face of inconsistency on anyone.
Van Til taught you how to accept an incoherent worldview and you bought it, hook line and sinker. You now won’t even question it, in the face of contradiction.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Just wait till he decides the man in the sky wants you and your family dead. He’ll do your children the favor of saving them from a life of sin and delivering them to the Lord!
[/quote]I don’t get to decide such things, much thanks to His flawless wisdom. If I did everybody would wind up in heaven and that is clearly NOT according to His eternally holy and gracious providence.
He and his familiy are already dead BTW. You’re not paying attention. My fervent prayer is that the God who IS life itself bring them forth from the spiritual grave in the power of His resurrection. By His wholly undeserved grace and sovereign mercy. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:You start with made up bullshit and refuse to accept that it’s made up bullshit.
You’re an idiot, you lose. Go pray.[/quote]Ya know this isn’t very neighborly for an open minded tolerant atheist. My hand will always be out to you friend and I would never stoop so low or be so dishonest as to call you a name disparaging your obvious intelligence which is a primary component in the image of almighty God in your person. It would be insulting to Him who created you. A thing I beg that He never allow me to fall into. Morning prayer was beautiful today as it usually (but not always) is. I never start, or end the day without it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Just wait till he decides the man in the sky wants you and your family dead. He’ll do your children the favor of saving them from a life of sin and delivering them to the Lord!
[/quote]I don’t get to decide such things, much thanks to His flawless wisdom. If I did everybody would wind up in heaven and that is clearly NOT according to His eternally holy and gracious providence.
He and his familiy are already dead BTW. You’re not paying attention. My fervent prayer is that the God who IS life itself bring them forth from the spiritual grave in the power of His resurrection. By His wholly undeserved grace and sovereign mercy. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:You start with made up bullshit and refuse to accept that it’s made up bullshit.
You’re an idiot, you lose. Go pray.[/quote]Ya know this isn’t very neighborly for an open minded tolerant atheist. My hand will always be out to you friend and I would never stoop so low or be so dishonest as to call you a name disparaging your obvious intelligence which is a primary component in the image of almighty God in your person. It would be insulting to Him who created you. A thing I beg that He never allow me to fall into. Morning prayer was beautiful today as it usually (but not always) is. I never start, or end the day without it.
[/quote]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you and your theology are very insulting to human dignity. I also think it says something about your view of God’s perfect creation.
That said, i think we are all being honest here. My opinion is that you probably found presuppositionalism (van til, etc all) very refreshing. I admit, it’s very interesting and takes the discussion to a new level.
The trouble is, it doesn’t appear that you’ve taken the time to internally critique it. Which is understandable since it’s predicated on the idea that all other points of view are wrong. While the inherent incoherence of your position doesn’t seem to bother you yet, my guess is that it will be like a splinter in your mind.
After all, how can you trust God’s revelation, or know what it is, unless you presuppose that you can rely on autonomous reasoning?
You can’t, logically. Yet, this is what presuppositionalism entails. Cognitive dissonance is keeping the inevitable conclusion at bay, but eventually the sand castle will fall since it’s not supported on anything solid.
What would actually change the mind of an atheist, or a believer?
I’ve said it before; I’m fairly convinced that there is a fundamental difference in the way an atheist and a believer process information. I don’t know if this difference is surmountable, or at which point in life it is surmountable. The obvious choice would be that belief or lack thereof could be conditioned in childhood… but, taking myself as an example, this is not necessarily true. I grew up in an extremely fundamentalist church…
Of course, it could be that an extremely fundamentalist church is poor conditioning for someone like me. And, we are just talking about a sample size of one. I can extrapolate that out to include most of the atheists or believers I know, but again we are not dealing with any viable sample size.
A correlative example would be how England’s school system has managed to eliminate the gap in math scores between the sexes, without lowering those of men. They’ve overcome what was once considered a genetic pre-disposition with effective teaching.