Thursday, August 27, 2009

Probably not new, but new to me


Perhaps anyone who objects to the word "belief" could go ahead and prove atheism.

22 comments:

Dr Funkenstein said...

surprised you haven't seen that one before, it's been doing the rounds for years now (like most of the demotivational /'Fail' posters and 'LOL' memes)

I shall retort with one of my favourites for the sake of equality :)

http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/prayer_demotivational.jpg

Rhology said...

Well, I'm not an awesome Web surfer, so that explains my lame way-behindedness.

The big diff between the two posters, though, is that mine is true on both sets of presuppositions.

justfinethanks said...

Meh. It's Kalam + Fine Tuning + Sarcasm. Like WL Craig meets Mad magazine.

Surely you're not so out of touch with internet memes that you haven't even come across what was probably your poster's inspiration, are you?

And also, why would any atheist object to atheism being called a "belief"? Beliefs can be true.

Rhology said...

Ah, jft, you're probably right that it's a copy. Wouldn't surprise me.
I would say, however, that the Atheism poster describes atheism much more accurately than the Christianity one you link to here.
-Jesus isn't a zombie
-He wasn't His own father
-EVERYONE lives forever, either in Heaven or Hell
-It's not telepathic - I can talk out loud and He hears, b/c He's omnipresent and omniscient
-Sin isn't a force, and He doesn't remove it from my soul. Sin is a quality of action, and He removes the CONDEMNATION of sin from my soul
-The tree wasn't magical. All the trees in the Garden of Eden were supernaturally made.
-And by the way, any argument against talking snakes besides "I've never seen one!" would be welcome. Any recognition that said talking snake was an embodiment of the Devil would also be welcome.

So, what's left? Really, not much. Can you point to a similar quantity and quality of strawman in the Atheism poster?

And atheists on this blog and others I go to object to calling atheism a belief all the time. And I do mean all the time. You'd have to ask them why they object.

Darlene said...

Rhology,

I don't think all atheists think in terms of that ditty. Having been raised as one, I was made to believe that no one had ever seen God so His existence couldn't be proven. Rather, it was more reasonable to believe in those things that could be substantiated and of which we are sure really do exist.

For example, we know when we are hungry that we must eat or we'll die of starvation. No brainer. We know that if we walk out in front of a car, we will be seriously injured or killed. On and on.

Now, apply logic to the Scriptures. A virgin has a baby. Not possible. An invisible being we have never seen creates this the universe and in 7 days no less! Prove it! Who can know this for sure? A man calling Himself the Son of God walks on water. Not possible and if such is so, why don't His followers do the same? Now apply most of the miraculous events recorded in the Bible to this logical test.

So, the atheist says it all comes down to faith and not indisputable facts.

Rhology, as you know already from my other posts, I do not subscribe to atheism. But, it was the environment in which I was raised so I can relate.

I am thankful that He has made Himself known to me. Such peace and contentment I never had growing up.

Darlene said...

IOW, the atheist is content in saying "I don't know" when it comes to how it all started, and who or what started it.

The charge levied against Christians is that they profess to KNOW how it all started and they attribute it to the Triune God. They rely upon the Bible which cannot be proven from a logical premise to be without error.

The atheist with his/her logical mind says, "Proove it." And the Christian retorts, "Proove that there isn't a God."

And round and round we go.

Rhology said...

Darlene,

I've been an atheist too. I didn't think in those terms really, but if you ask enough questions...well, it becomes a different ballgame.

I'd respond to what you've said in the same way that I respond to atheists.


we know when we are hungry that we must eat or we'll die of starvation

You reason to this INDUCTIVELY. And that's fine, as far as it goes.
But for one thing, what reason would anyone have to trust one's own reason and thoughts, if atheism is true?


A virgin has a baby. Not possible

How do you know?
You've never observed that a virgin could have a baby, but why is your inductive, limited observation the rule of knowledge for everyone?
And again, if there is no God, what guarantee does anyone have that your rational faculties can reliably discover truth?


An invisible being we have never seen creates this the universe and in 7 days no less! Prove it! Who can know this for sure?

Prove it? Sure!
God said so.
Now, please explain what standard of truth could be higher than the word of an omniscient, good God Who never lies?


Not possible and if such is so, why don't His followers do the same?

Why would "why don't His followers do the same?" be a relevant question? It would be if God had promised to allow His followers to do so, but He never did, so... so what?


IOW, the atheist is content in saying "I don't know" when it comes to how it all started, and who or what started it.

And I'm sure that makes them very happy. But it doesn't, and shouldn't, satisfy the seeker of truth. If an atheist can't tell me anything about the origin of the universe, but indeed any decent explanation necessarily incorporates the contrary of atheism, well, that makes me pretty suspicious.
They can't tell me whence cometh or the nature of the laws of logic, and others make up ridiculous explanations, like "humans invented them".
Finally, the atheist is making a positive claim for whatever worldview s/he holds to, that it doesn't have a God. I'm just asking them to provide some evidence for their worldview. And if they don't want to be honest enough to provide evidence for atheism qua atheism, then I'll just ask them to name their worldview (naturalism, materialism, empiricism, whatever) and provide evidence for IT.
Needless to say, that hasn't happened too many times. But there's no escaping that atheism in all its flavors that I've seen is described by the poster.


They rely upon the Bible which cannot be proven from a logical premise to be without error.

The consistent Christian will retort that the biblical worldview is necessarily true, b/c it grounds truth and rationality, and it is impossible for those not to be grounded.
So, better stated: The atheist with his/her logical mind says, "Prove it." And the Christian retorts, "First, describe to me how 'proof' works in an atheist universe."

NAL said...

Rho:

If an atheist can't tell me anything about the origin of the universe, but indeed any decent explanation necessarily incorporates the contrary of atheism, well, that makes me pretty suspicious.

If atheism doesn't tell you anything about the origin of the universe, then how can the contrary of atheism tell you anything?

You're flipping between Darlene's assertion, that atheists don't know anything, and your own assertion that atheists believe there was nothing.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Now, please explain what standard of truth could be higher than the word of an omniscient, good God Who never lies?

interestingly, you've used as an argument before against me that God sends deceptions on non-believers (2 Thess 2:11). How can something that never lies also be a deceiver without holding to a contradiction?

Stephen Law's evil god thesis is a good argument against this also, as is the fact Christianity also affirms the existence of evil supernatural beings out to trick us.

furthermore, while we can all imagine such a being as you've described exists, it doesn't follow such a thing does actually exist in reality

-And by the way, any argument against talking snakes besides "I've never seen one!" would be welcome.

I think given the knowledge of snake physiology coupled with the sheer number of observations we possess of snake behaviour, much like anyone who believes in the existence of unicorns the onus is on the believer to support their claim, not the non-believer to provide even more support to disprove it (preferably with something better than 'it's written down in a book I take really seriously, therefore it must be possible').

-He wasn't His own father

If apologists were actually able to explain the trinity, that objection might hold

If an atheist can't tell me anything about the origin of the universe,

I think there are a fair few atheist friendly hypotheses out there, although supporting them is somewhat more difficult a task than proposing them. I don't have a particularly great knowledge of current affairs in cosmology though, so goggle will be more help than I am.

that said, even if there were no such hypotheses I fail to see how ignorance is disproof of one position and support for another.

but indeed any decent explanation necessarily incorporates the contrary of atheism

Since when has 'God did it' constituted a good explanation for anything or a necessary component of any explanation as regards the origin of the universe?

PChem said...

Since when has 'God did it' constituted a good explanation for anything or a necessary component of any explanation as regards the origin of the universe?

Since he created the universe.

justfinethanks said...

Jesus isn't a zombie

Let's Check.

1. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
2. A corpse revived in this way.


Hmmm, you're technically correct in that Jesus isn't believed to have been revived via VOODOO powers, but rather divine supernatural powers. But the core meaning is the same: Jesus is a supernaturally revived corpse (i.e. a zombie)

He wasn't His own father

Obviously, this is just a swipe at the coherence of the trinity. The Father is God, the Son is God, therefore God is the father of God (under different names.)

EVERYONE lives forever

"whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

The Bible says some people "perish" and some people have "eternal life." Which means that not everyone has eternal life. If you argue that "life" in this passage only refers to a kind of heavenly life, then lets go ahead and assume that the "life" being spoken of in the poster is the same as is mentioned here.

It's not telepathic - I can talk out loud and He hears, b/c He's omnipresent and omniscient

Where in the poster does it imply that God can't hear spoken speech? It is saying that God is telepathic. Like if you sincerely and silently pray for forgiveness with your thoughts, God will grant your wish. You surely don't deny this, don't you? To deny that God is telepathic is deny the omnipotence of God and deny Christianity.

Sin isn't a force, and He doesn't remove it from my soul. Sin is a quality of action, and He removes the CONDEMNATION of sin from my soul.

This seems like quibbling (removing sin vs. removing condemnation for sinful acts), but I'll grant that the poster is inaccurate on this point.

The tree wasn't magical. All the trees in the Garden of Eden were supernaturally made.

Both magic and the supernatural operate with non-natural forces. I really fail to understand how they aren't essentionally synonymous.

And by the way, any argument against talking snakes besides "I've never seen one!" would be welcome.

OK, how about the fact that snakes do not posesses the vocal abilities to produce sounds that replicate human speech? You're welcome.

justfinethanks said...

Not saying that you're wrong about it being actually devil, but where's your prooftext for that?

Genesis 3:1 explicitly states
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made."

Clearly, Genesis is refering to an actual "wild animal" and not an embodiment of something else.

And Genesis 3:14 says
"So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, 'Cursed are you above all the livestock.' "

If the Eden snake was actually the devil embodied, why are all of the snakes ancestors getting punished for something that a snake didn't actually do? And why is there no mention of the devil in Genesis 3? Maybe I'm missing it.


Bonus question: Are animals morally culpable in Christianity?

It seems to me that the only possible exegesis of Genesis 3 is an actual, slithering snake, and later Christian authors thought it would fit into their narrative better if he was the devil instead.

(As a side note, when I reread Gen 3, I loved, and can't believe I never noticed verse 21: "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them." Man, I bet God is a great tailor. So why is it that every painting of the pair after the fall assumes that God is lousy at the sewing machine?)

Can you point to a similar quantity and quality of strawman in the Atheism poster?

Well, firstly, most (but not all I will admit) atheists believe in an eternal universe.

INFINITE REGRESS! ACTUAL INFINITE! HILBERT'S HOTEL!

Yawn. I know how the song and dance goes. But the poster is inaccurate in that most atheists contest the second premise in Kalam.

The bit about self replicating molecules forming for no reason is true I suppose (if you define "reason" as "having an intelligent cause"), but why do self replicating molecules need a "reason" to exist necessarily? And turning into dinosaurs. Well, we have a demonstrable mechanism in nature that is capable of a such a thing, so I don't see what's so objectionable about that.

And atheists on this blog and others I go to object to calling atheism a belief all the time. And I do mean all the time.

Weird. They need a dictionary.

Rhology said...

jft,

Yawn.

So...you have an answer for the problem of infinite regress? I'd LOVE to see it.
Go ahead and throw in why you disagree with the prevalent Big Bang theory of the day, and how the universe hasn't experienced heat death yet. Thanks!

justfinethanks said...

So...you have an answer for the problem of infinite regress?

I was referring to the challenge that theists pose that an actual infinite is impossible, and an infinite series of events is an actual infinite. That's metaphysics. You are derailing into epitsmology. Clearly, no serious philospher is a pure evidentialist, so your challenge to evidentailism doesn't really mean anything. (Incidentally, does this mean that you also reject all purported evidence for the resurrection?) Most are foundationalists, but I've met a few that are coherentists.

Go ahead and throw in why you disagree with the prevalent Big Bang theory of the day

Why would I? Despite the mangling by theists, it's a bit counter factual to say that big bang actually says the universe had a beginning.

Alan Guth, who knows a thing or two about physics, says "Despite it's name, the big bang theory isn't really a theory of a bang at all. It's really only a theory of the aftermath of a bang. [It] says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged."

Saying the BB is a literal beginning is a classic 'God of the Gaps' move.

Incidentailly, if string theory pans out (and we have good reasons to remain skeptical it will) we may get those "before the big bang" questions answered in our lifetime.

how the universe hasn't experienced heat death yet.

Because it isn't 10 to the 100th power years from now. Of course, your question assumes an "A" theory of time that I don't subscribe to. The B theory is much more in line with our observations.

Rhology said...

Hi jft,

This is a zombie. Jesus wasn't a zombie.
Zombies are reanimated corpses. Jesus was a resurrected, glorified man, not a decaying, mindless brain-eating machine.


The Father is God, the Son is God, therefore God is the father of God (under different names.)

You apparently know little about the doctrine. The Father is one hypostasis, and the Son is another. They share the same ousios, homoousios. One What, two Whos.
Try again.


The Bible says some people "perish" and some people have "eternal life."

The others will exist forever in torment in the lake of fire. Still conscious, still existent. "Life" is shorthand here for Heaven, not Hell.


Like if you sincerely and silently pray for forgiveness with your thoughts, God will grant your wish. You surely don't deny this, don't you? To deny that God is telepathic is deny the omnipotence of God and deny Christianity.

Meh, fine. I guess I'll have to admit I was reacting against the usually-negative implication of the word "telepathic", but that was lazy of me.


Both magic and the supernatural operate with non-natural forces. I really fail to understand how they aren't essentionally synonymous.

This might help.


OK, how about the fact that snakes do not posesses the vocal abilities to produce sounds that replicate human speech? You're welcome.

1) Inductive.
2) You don't know that snakes DIDN'T back then.
3) This snake was obviously an embodiment of Satan. Donkeys don't generally talk either (Balaam) but one did when it was under supernatural influence.


If the Eden snake was actually the devil embodied, why are all of the snakes ancestors getting punished for something that a snake didn't actually do?

B/c God wanted to do so. Inherited guilt from a federal head is also imputed to all ancestors of Adam and Eve, if you notice.


Are animals morally culpable in Christianity?

Guess that one was.


It seems to me that the only possible exegesis of Genesis 3 is an actual, slithering snake

The PUNISHMENT was that the snake would slither, AFTER. And it's not like no mention = no presence.


So why is it that every painting of the pair after the fall assumes that God is lousy at the sewing machine?

Um, why would I care what much later painters paint?


why do self replicating molecules need a "reason" to exist necessarily?

I love it - atheists are all about the power of human curiosity and scientific pursuit whenever it suits them, but ask the right question and they're taking it all on faith and wishful thinking. You're a credit to your religion.


no serious philospher is a pure evidentialist, so your challenge to evidentailism doesn't really mean anything. (Incidentally, does this mean that you also reject all purported evidence for the resurrection?)

Why would I reject the utility of evidence? Evidence makes sense only on a theistic worldview, and evidence has no meaning in an atheist universe. I'm the ONLY one here (except PChem) who can be consistent in looking at evidence.
Besides, most atheists I deal with on this blog ARE evidentialists. I was responding to Martin Wagner of the Atheist Experience, a fairly well-known atheist. Much more well-known than you, I might add.


it's a bit counter factual to say that big bang actually says the universe had a beginning.

So a big explosion from a singularity is somehow qualitatively diff from saying the univ had a beginning? How so?
Space and time coming into existence at one event?
If you want to claim that no one knows what it was, OK. I'd ask you then about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Rhology said...

Because it isn't 10 to the 100th power years from now.

Wrong answer. You believe in a universe that HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. That means infinite time has passed before this moment. This is impossible on terms of entropy.
This is also impossible b/c every second we live and breathe, we're observing one second added to an infinite number of seconds. This is also impossible.
My suggestion is that you adjust your view.



Dr Funk,

I'd said: Now, please explain what standard of truth could be higher than the word of an omniscient, good God Who never lies?
interestingly, you've used as an argument before against me that God sends deceptions on non-believers (2 Thess 2:11). How can something that never lies also be a deceiver without holding to a contradiction?

This is to be understood as God using the consistent and obstinate self-deception
of unbelievers to take them deeper into self-deception, much like Pharaoh, or King Ahab in Kings.



Stephen Law's evil god thesis is a good argument against this also, as is the fact Christianity also affirms the existence of evil supernatural beings out to trick us.

One wonders whether Law's thesis then provides for a way to know truth.


If apologists were actually able to explain the trinity, that objection might hold

Let me suggest you read up some on the Council of Nicæa.


Since when has 'God did it' constituted a good explanation for anything or a necessary component of any explanation as regards the origin of the universe?

If you don't have an explanation otherwise...
It's one thing to cry "God of the gaps!" and quite another to actually give some kind of answer that actually responds to the biblical view, in which God often uses natural means to accomplish His ends. You may say that that looks suspiciously ad hoc, but the Bible's been around a lot longer than modern science. Further, the Bible is true, so I'd fully expect its descriptions to match up with reality.

Dr Funkenstein said...

This is to be understood as God using the consistent and obstinate self-deception
of unbelievers to take them deeper into self-deception, much like Pharaoh, or King Ahab in Kings.


Except it doesn't mention merely passively letting them slide into self-deception. It mentions God sending them a deception ie taking action to ensure they are deceived.

"11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Let me suggest you read up some on the Council of Nicæa.

So are you seriously saying John Frame and Cornelius van Til are/were unaware of the council of Nicea?

One affirms the doctrine as one person=3 persons and the other admits he can't explain it to any degree of satisfaction

You are aware there's a large difference between being able to state what the trinity consists of and explaining how that can be logically possible (and furthermore, in a manner consistent with traditional Christian beliefs)?

Besides, given this topic comes up fairly frequently, if you feel you have an answer where these major reformed theologians fail, why not present an outline of it rather than simply asserting that it's not irrational/contradictory or that the goings on of the CoN explain it?

If you don't have an explanation otherwise...

Again, ignorance is not affirmation of an alternative position. A fairly substantial portion of the apologetic enterprise is founded on the back of this fallacy.


It's one thing to cry "God of the gaps!" and quite another to actually give some kind of answer that actually responds to the biblical view, in which God often uses natural means to accomplish His ends.

God of the gaps is a legitimate objection - there's a dictionary length list of things that people falsely attributed to the supernatural throughout history simply because they were iggorant or couldn't think up an alternative, only for someone to provide an actual answer (often several centuries later).

Many things you claim are due to natural processes now were thought to be inexplicable without direct supernatural intervention in the past, even by the most inquisitive minds of the time (eg Isaac Newton) - this clearly indicates the arbitrary nature of supernatural claims, since believers merely apply supernatural causation to any set of events they happen to favour (ie your application of the supernatural would not be the same as Newton's because you have more access to knowledge of how certain phenomena are explained by natural causes than Newton did in his day).

You may say that that looks suspiciously ad hoc, but the Bible's been around a lot longer than modern science.

So what - the Qu'ran's been around for 1400 years and the stories of the Greek gods for more than 2500. it doesn't make them any more true than something discovered yesterday. Longevity of an idea isn't a barometer of its reliability or truth.

Further, the Bible is true, so I'd fully expect its descriptions to match up with reality.

Talking snakes, numerous dead men coming back to life after several days or even decades or centuries of being dead, virgin births etc bear no resemblance to anything in the real world. A cartoon yes, the real world not so much.

Joel said...

If it's traditional you want, there's always Augustine. Are you familiar with his distinction between belief and understanding/contemplation? He maintains in the De Trinitate that although human minds are too limited to contemplate God's person directly - a robust affirmation of radical divide between creator and created which, I suppose, is somewhat of a concession to your point; although at the same time we might with to examine whether it is reasonable to expect the Supreme Being to be entirely perspicuous to minds not merely finite but corrupt - we can perceive certain analogies to the Trinity in our own experience.

But although there are analogies - Augustine cites the operation of our memories, for instance, simply to demonstrate that the proposition of three in one is not absurd - the fundamental question seems to me to hinge on whether or not God's being comprehensible to our minds is a petitio. That is, does not the request for a proof, according to finite human faculties, of that which is entirely beyond them demonstrate a prior commitment to that proof's subject being incoherent?

Joel said...

It's as though I were to disbelieve in Elephants on the principle that everything that actually exists must be able to fit through my wedding ring.

Rhology said...

It mentions God sending them a deception ie taking action to ensure they are deceived.

And why would that worry someone who IS a believer?



One affirms the doctrine as one person=3 persons and the other admits he can't explain it to any degree of satisfaction

I'd imagine the context of each statement would be key. Plus, just b/c I can use words to describe the Trinity doesn't mean I fully understand it or feel like I have a good grasp on it. But I can know enough to affirm that it's not a logical contradiction.
You know what I find harder to understand and explain than the Trinity? The Incarnation of Christ. Crazy. It boggles my mind.


and explaining how that can be logically possible (and furthermore, in a manner consistent with traditional Christian beliefs)?

I don't see what's so hard about explaining how it's logically possible, really.
One homoousios. Three hypostases. One essence/being, three persons. One what, three whos.


Again, ignorance is not affirmation of an alternative position.

It apparently doesn't stop you from saying that the Trinity is internally contradictory...


there's a dictionary length list of things that people falsely attributed to the supernatural throughout history

Fair enough, but that's a bit diff from what I'm doing here.
My contention is that God is behind ALL things and that He often/mostly uses natural means to attain His ends. It's like when some skeptic asked me - "Well, are rocks intelligently designed?" Of course they are; he didn't understand my position, but I don't fault him for that really, as most ID-ers don't elucidate that well, b/c they seem to be afraid of stepping on too many toes with openly-confessed theism.
So that's on the one side, and on the other, I'm simply mocking your position b/c you have no idea about a pretty important question, kinda like the origin of the laws of logic. "But we'll EVENTUALLY figure it out!" you say. Suuuuuuurrrrreeee you will. And until then, it's atheism-of-the-gaps.


the Qu'ran's been around for 1400 years and the stories of the Greek gods for more than 2500. it doesn't make them any more true than something discovered yesterday.

I didn't say the Bible's age made it true. I said its age dismisses the charge of ad hoc-itude.


Talking snakes, numerous dead men coming back to life after several days or even decades or centuries of being dead, virgin births etc bear no resemblance to anything in the real world.

B/c you've never observed them. This is more atheism-of-the-gaps. Maybe someday we WILL observe them.
And in point of fact, they have been observed, but these data don't fit into your naturalistic scheme, so you simply ignore them.

Dr Funkenstein said...

And why would that worry someone who IS a believer?

Because that wasn't your claim (that God just tells the truth to a select audience some of the time)

It was that you have an unchanging standard that cannot ever lie.

The fact that this standard apparently does lie is rather probelamtic for your position, since if it lies at all then how do we judge when it's telling the truth (checking against facts in the real world isn't really an option given that God would have the power to change these facts at will)?

I'd imagine the context of each statement would be key.

I think I posted the link a while back, I'll see if I can find it again. Either way, what else do you think either of them could mean with those admissions?

But I can know enough to affirm that it's not a logical contradiction.

But we're still waiting to see how you do this - all we keep seeing is a statement of the trinity, not an explanation of how 3 persons can be 1 being.

One essence/being, three persons. One what, three whos.

My brother is one being. Him, my other brother and me are 3 persons - does that mean we could all be my brother at the same time if one being can consist of 3 persons?

Or a football quarterback is one being - could 3 people fill that role at the same time?

It apparently doesn't stop you from saying that the Trinity is internally contradictory...

Because this isn't a case of argument from ignorance (which is where if I can't explain something, your explanation should be preferred without support), it's a case that a logical contradiction exists and has been idenitfied. Would it be the case that I should wait on an explanation for how 1 quarterback can be composed of 3 persons at the same time, or should I identify it for what it is (a contradiction)?

Dr Funkenstein said...

So that's on the one side, ...Suuuuuuurrrrreeee you will. And until then, it's atheism-of-the-gaps.

1. You don't actually have an explanation for logic on theism - an explanation generally requires at least some detail, not just an assertion that it depends on some supernatural mind or that a storybook was dictated by a god, or that lazy sloganeering such as 'the impossibility of the contrary' actual counts as proof of anything.

Anyone can imagine a supernatural being that thinks in a perfectly logical manner or imagine that this supernatural being dictated a set of stories to a group of people in the near East between 2-3000 years ago that supposedly can be used to infer God as the source of logic, but imagination is not the same as proof or support of an idea. Again referencing John Frame - when he admits he has no idea of how God contacts believers (past and present) to reveal himself, given that a big chunk of epistemology is explaining how we know things, that would also be a fairly big hit against the presupp claims to God as a justification for knowledge, would it not?

2. An explanation of logic would probably have to rely on the non-existence of a god. when Mike Warren says:

"In knowing a flower, for example, God knows everything about the flower. Humans can have that flower as an object of their knowledge as well, so there is a similarity in the knowledge; but a difference is that humans cannot know the flower exhaustively. Not only is there a quantitative difference between divine and human knowledge of the flower, but there are qualitative differences. God knows the flower originally. Everything about the flower originates from His own consciousness. Indeed, God's thinking about the flower makes it so. In contrast, humans know the flower as something originating external to them. Their thinking about the flower does not make it so. Human knowledge claims about the flower can be incorrect, unlike God's perfect knowledge."


and C. van Til says:

"God may at any time take one fact and set it into a new relation to created law. That is, there is no inherent reason in the facts or laws why this should not be done. It is this sort of conception of the relation of facts and laws, of the temporal one and many, embedded as it is in the idea of God in which we profess to believe, that we need in order to make room for miracles. And miracles are at the heart of the Christian position."


Maybe you can explain how, say, the law of identity would hold in the event of affirming these views? How could A=A if God can simply think any fact into 'new relation to created law'?

B/c you've never observed them. This is more atheism-of-the-gaps. Maybe someday we WILL observe them.

Maybe. And maybe all those vampires in I Am Legend might turn out to be real, maybe there really are people flying around on broomsticks like in Harry Potter and maybe there really are aliens on Jupiter that contacted a series of cults here on Earth in the 60s and 70s...

And in point of fact, they have been observed, but these data don't fit into your naturalistic scheme, so you simply ignore them.

Not at all - I simply recognise that in certain media (cartoons, storybooks, films, spoken claims or indeed religious texts) that there's no requirement that anything detailed in them has to actually be true or feasible in the real world. Presumably you don't consider the content of Rudyard Kipling books to be feasible in the real world? Yet they aren't really any different to the story of the serpent in Genesis.

It's also not a case of fitting anything to my 'naturalistic scheme' - I mean, presumably you don't think Marshall Applewhite or Marion Keech were actually contacted by aliens from Jupiter just because they claimed they were, do you? You'll note that you ignore the overwhelming majority of this sort of rubbish as well, aside from a few select claims that you happen to favour that have no more real world support than any of the ones you reject.