No disrespect to Dr Funkenstein, it's just that, for some reason, discussing with him is edifying. I thank him for his time.
Those are all (except possibly for endosymbiosis) variations on the same theme. Is he ashamed of his own mechanism or sthg?
But 'supernatural' is neither a mechanism or an explanation, it's an untested assertion
Untested by physical means, of course.
And yet well attested-to in history, and of course thoroughly rational. Indeed, it's necessary to explain such things as the Resurrection of Christ, the origin of the universe, etc.
since any and all observations could be filed under 'supernatural'
Supernatural events are not just bare facts - they come with a historical context and a religious context. Not all events are supernatural.
He himself doesn'tt believe that, since he'd have no way to tell apart natural from super-natural. It'd all be in one category.
what explanatory power does a claim have if it cover absolutely any observation?
It's not my fault that God covered all the bases. He needs to produce a different sort of disproof than the kind he'd like to present or is used to presenting. His discomfort and rebellion are not my problem.
what on Earth do you propose as the next hypothesis from that?
I don't know exactly what he means, but I'd sure be curious as to how, and a lot of the time that how is available to our analysis. Don't set up a false dilemma.
It contains NO mechanistic details. It contains NO explanation.
Almost agreed on the 1st. It tells us that He did it via His supernatural power. That's a mechanistic detail.
The 2nd one is flat wrong - it tells us who did the action, we usually therefore know why (which is in distinction to naturalistic analyses, which can give no why at all), it also allows us how to distinguish between God-based actions and actions performed by others.
Why limit it to just those kinds of questions? There are all kinds of things in the world that people study. Not everyone is as myopic as your line of questioning here and as the topic of this blogpost.
Again, not my fault if God covers all His bases.
Besides, it's not as if the Darwinian establishment is all that welcoming of criticism of their catch-all theory.
PAs seem to think they can make these claims and we're just supposed to accept them simply on their say so without any obvious reason
Well, I don't. I expect you to recognise you have no answer (indeed, you've produced virtually zero defense for your own epistemological position, instead choosing to attack mine) for the criticms I aim against your epistemology and therefore be intellectually honest enough to look for a defensible alternative, and obviously I believe my own is defensible.
1. Atheism can't account for logic (and you've not really defined which atheist worldview(s) that might be)
Let's make it easy - how about yours? Account for logic, please.
If you need help, check out the introductory steps at www.proofthatgodexists.org. it's a decent primer into the kinds of questions I'm asking.
3. Theism accounts for logic, specifically only Christian theism
I wouldn't and don't say the latter half. Islam accts for it just fine - its problems are in other areas. Same for Judaism.
It is impossible that any other viewpoint could account for logic
Strawman. I just haven't seen one yet. I'm waiting and waiting and waiting...
The laws of logic are universal and invariant
Correct. Presumably, you believe this too.
Or perhaps you believe that in other parts of the universe, it is possible that God exists and doesn't exist at the same time in the same way at the same time.
statements like (3) and (4) are just assertions, since many worldviews could potentially account for it, not just mine or yours.
Prove it. Bring forth an alternative. I don't know how many times I've requested such, but it's a lot.
You claim to have examined many, but presumably not all.
It's impossible to examine ALL. Just bring forth your alternative and let's talk.
I'd also bet that scholars of various other religions could do the same process PAs do and jump through hoops to 'prove' their religion as being the one and only account for logic.
And then we'd examine their claims and see if they hold up.
This is not that hard. If you'd stop thinking of all Reformed people as knuckle-draggers, maybe you'd actually make a useful argument rather than floundering about in the kiddie pool, screaming you're Michael Phelps, and you better believe me!
On (2) and (3) I've still not seen an explanation as to how one would prove TGOTB's existence beyond simply asserting it as a fact, or any reason why logic depends on his existence.
Impossibility of all contrary views I've ever seen.
So people would know of TGOTB without the bible/parts of the bible?
Do us both a favor and read Psalm 19, Romans 1, and Romans 2.
It's sufficient, yet doesn't outline the very laws you claim depend on him
Let the reader judge whether that's what I said.
do you not think something that important might have been worth a mention? After all it lists many other laws he considers vital
Once again Dr Funk presumes to tell God how to run the universe.
Maybe you could create one and tell us all how it's gone after the first few minutes.
Anyone could also argue logic is simply implied in the way the universe works
This from the guy who above questioned me on whether the laws of logic are universal and invariant.
Even a quick look on Wiki points out that Nikolai Vasiliev had developed a system of 'imaginary logic' not utilising the LoEM or LoNC.
So dialetheism is both totally inaccurate and completely accurate at the same time.
Go sell your snake oil to some 19 year old English major.
what value is evidence to a PA if you always know what conclusion you must reach no matter what?
It strengthens my faith and gives me more and more cause to praise God.
Once again, Dr Funk makes no attempt to actually answer the question and defend his own position. Seems he's content to assume logic, even though its utility is in doubt both from myself AND from him in two ways, and then attack my position and posit ridiculous possibilities such as dialetheism to stave off scrutiny of his position. Let the reader judge whether this is worthy of any serious consideration.
Your claim was you could "account for" or explain how all this happens.
Precisely. I know the responsible agent and that He did it.
Dr Funk is in the same boat - he doesn't KNOW how evolution got us here, he can't observe it. He guesses it, thinks he has some circumstantial evidence as to the process, etc.
Similarly, he doesn't know HOW the gas in his car explodes to drive it fwd, he just knows it does.
He doesn't know how the Cheerios he had for breakfast fuel his body, he just knows they do.
Outside of his field of expertise, he takes all kinds of things by faith.
Van Til was quite prepared to accept the prevalent idea of his day, that a completely self-consistent non-Christian world view was possible.
OK, that may be. I've never read any VT.
I'd say he's mistaken, if this is the case.
he conceded that science might one day explain away all the miracles of the Bible and anything else which seemed to point to God
Which goes along with his highly presuppositional stance, yes.
He said, "We must allow that it is quite possible that at some future date all the miracles recorded in Bible, not excluding the resurrection of Christ, may be explained by natural laws."
He'd be wrong there.
"All teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory."
And there as well.
Do those sound like the words of someone actually interested in finding out truth
When compared to the utter banality of the atheist worldview, [shrug]. But I don't agree with him on these points, nor is he my authority.
On the second part, so why get bummed out about atheists, criminals, moral relativists, evolutionists, other religions etc if none of us can do anything about it 'til the HS 'zaps' us?
Who's "bummed out"?
I have a standing command to tell all people about Jesus and to defend the faith when called upon to do, and to shut the mouths of unbelievers when they present ridiculous objections to the faith. It's probably tough for you to get a bead on my motivations, and I don't really expect you to understand, which is why I restrict my questions and challenges to the facts and ideas, rather than wasting time with motivations. It's an approach that has much to commend it, and I'd commend it to you.
what does the randomness apparent in quantum mechanics signify? I'm also still at a loss to work out why order would depend on some divine string puller.
Perhaps you think order can just spontaneously arise, much as you believe that human beings evolved from rocks.
That's one reason to get 'bummed out' (not that I am, I'm just saying) - Dr Funk would make a great Christian, since he has a highly-developed sense of faith.