Apparently the Jolly Nihilist doesn't, though. I reproduce here an excerpt of that combox:
It is not really an “assumption” that, when a star is one million light years from Earth, it takes one million years for the light to reach Earth; that is basic science.
How precisely did you test that assertion scientifically?
Oh, that's right - you ASSUMED the light beams didn't originally stretch all the way to Earth originally. That's called an ASSUMPTION. I'm sorry you need a refresher on what science covers, but it's not science until you apply the scientific method to it and observe repeated results. If you can give me an experiment that's repeatable by which you could test this whole thing, let me know, but don't call it "science", let alone "basic science", until you do.
with respect to radioactive dating, even on the assumption of non-uniformitarianism, the bare fact remains that, now, with current rates of decay, when radioisotopes occur together, enabling the dates to be cross-checked, the ages invariably agree,
For the 4th time or so, all that tells you is that these tests agree. Then come the assumptions to interp what that means and apply to the age of the Earth.
What on your naturalistic framework makes you think that there's a telos to these decay rates, that they're meant and intended to tell you their age? You don't have one and your worldview doesn't support it. But since you're wedded to finding confirmation for your assumption, that's how you present it.
beggaring all belief and all statistical likelihood, the decay rates have all changed in such a way
1) How is belief relevant? Plenty of ppl believe that God created the world. More than believe evolution, BTW.
2) How precisely did you calculate the likelihood? What kind of probability measurement?
They are frantic inasmuch as, even though the bible provides no genuine astronomic knowledge of which to speak,
It tells us God created the world in an instant and approximately how long ago it was. It's not hard to go from there. I have no education in astronomy, and I figured it out.
It's not as if scientific conclusions are against my position, let's be clear. ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENTISTS are against it, but so what?
It is true that, with enough tortured harmonization, your position can probably account for every bit of data we have found
"Tortured" is an opinion, and it is quickly becoming clear you're not an unbiased arbiter thereof.
And I'd fully expect a worldview that is true to acct for all data. Wouldn't you?
If the bible can be harmonized to ANYthing, it essentially predicts NOthing.
Or the Bible is true.
Maybe you prefer a worldview that DOESN'T acct for all the data. If that's the case, stay where you are - you're in the right place.
Why, in principle, would it have been impossible for both dating methods never to have given us a date older than 6000 years?
It wouldn't be. But I deal in facts and logic, not dreams.
Showing posts with label jolly nihilist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jolly nihilist. Show all posts
Friday, September 03, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Jolly Nihilist's masterstroke against Young Earth Creationism
Here it is, in all its glory.
Begs the question, namely that God didn't create the stars and the light from those stars reaching between Earth and said stars.
JN says: I recognize it as a frantic harmonization scheme in which the YEC proponent is confronted
Hahaha, God made man and all the other stuff mature. How is it "frantic" to think God did the same with other things in the universe? And surely the JN doesn't want to say that harmonisation is a bad thing - we all do that, and he's doing it right here.
Ignores the YEC position entirely, that God created organisms mature at creation.
Furthermore, those to-the-year-accurate dendrochronological records can be, and indeed are, used to calibrate our radiocarbon dating
One fallacious and question-begging assertion is bad enough, but the JN apparently thinks that stacking them atop each other is in reality a really good thing.
Why is it that, if these are the JN's 3 trump cards against YEC, that none of them even get out of the gate? Where are the hardcore, well-thought-out critiques?
I shall articulate why Young Earth creationism is a bankrupt, incorrect, actively disproved notion that no one could defend except through willful adherence to an unyielding, inflexible dogma.
#1 Radioactive dating disproves Young Earth creationism.
Carbon-14 decays to Nitrogen-14; its half-life is 5730 years. Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206; its half-life is 4.5 billion years. Uranium-235 decays to Lead-207; its half-life is 704 million years. Other unstable isotopes include Potassium-40, Thorium-232, Rubidium-87 and Samarium-147. Several radioisotopes usually occur together, so the dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariably agree. To put the lie to the Young Earth position, and demonstrate why the oft-repeated “uniformitarian assumptions” objection rings hollow, consider this: If a hunk of rock is radioactively dated at, say, 250 million years old, but in actuality it is only 6000 years old, per YEC, that would entail that the multiple radioisotopes present, all of which converge on an age of 250 million years, would have all had to change differently. Uranium-238 would have had to change differently from Uranium-235, and both would have had to change differently from Samarium-147. If several radioisotopes usually occur together, and they have different half-life values (those half-life values frequently crossing orders of magnitude), there is nothing in the cross-checking process that would require the separate calculations to converge on the same age. Yet, despite the fact it very well could be otherwise, it is not; the ages, across radioisotopes, invariably agree. The changing-decay-rate YEC hypothesis, barring a deceptive creator twist in which the creator wants to impart incorrect information, would be the equivalent of Rhology, Barack Obama, William Lane Craig and me all agreeing to meet at a particular diner “sometime in 2011” and, by sheer and utter coincidence, all four of us arriving at the diner on exactly the same day at precisely the same instant.Assumes uniformitarianism, w/o argument. In fact, it proudly proclaims that assumption, with only an argument from unsavory consequences (the Creator would thus be deceptive) and an argument from ignorance (we've never seen it act differently) as its support.
#2: Astronomic knowledge disproves Young Earth creationism.
Gaze up into the night sky. Proxima Centauri, the star nearest to our Sun, is 4.3 light years away, meaning that light from it takes 4.3 years to reach us. Our galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years across, meaning that it can take tens of thousands of years for light from some stars in our galaxy to reach us. For stars that we can see in nearby galaxies, it can take millions of years. The farthest objects we can see are quasars, which are so distant that the light we see from them today left billions of years ago. If the universe were merely 6000-some years old, the light simply would not have had the requisite time to reach us. Although I have heard the “god created the stars as well as light beams” response, I recognize it as a frantic harmonization scheme in which the YEC proponent is confronted with a fact that is utterly contrary to what the bible would predict and, thus, the creationist must confect an unparsimonious, tortured “explanation” that bespeaks not so much understanding as slavish, willful, dogged adherence.
Begs the question, namely that God didn't create the stars and the light from those stars reaching between Earth and said stars.
JN says: I recognize it as a frantic harmonization scheme in which the YEC proponent is confronted
Hahaha, God made man and all the other stuff mature. How is it "frantic" to think God did the same with other things in the universe? And surely the JN doesn't want to say that harmonisation is a bad thing - we all do that, and he's doing it right here.
#3: Dendrochronology disproves Young Earth creationism.
An 11,500-year dendrochronological record, existing wholly independently from radiocarbon dating and that is to-the-year accurate, has been achieved through a daisy-chaining process having to do with characteristic tree-ring sequences in a particular geographic area. Utilizing those characteristic tree-ring sequences, scientists can daisy chain their way back thousands and thousands of years, thus disproving a young Earth. Furthermore, those to-the-year-accurate dendrochronological records can be, and indeed are, used to calibrate our radiocarbon dating, thereby allowing us to date many things of the relatively recent past (but considerably beyond 6000-some years).
Ignores the YEC position entirely, that God created organisms mature at creation.
Furthermore, those to-the-year-accurate dendrochronological records can be, and indeed are, used to calibrate our radiocarbon dating
One fallacious and question-begging assertion is bad enough, but the JN apparently thinks that stacking them atop each other is in reality a really good thing.
Why is it that, if these are the JN's 3 trump cards against YEC, that none of them even get out of the gate? Where are the hardcore, well-thought-out critiques?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Just the opinions, ma'am, just the opinions
Recently the Jolly Nihilist has returned to blogging, and the blogosphere is better for it. He has also appeared here fairly often, and such engagements are profitable for us Christians, and of course we pray they are so for him as well.
During our fairly long history of discussion and debate, I have often accused him (most notably, here) of inconsistency with respect to the way he deals with questions of morality, of should and of ought. On the one hand, he'll say:
Then he'll turn around and say things like:
Throwing out a token "but it's not immoral" to cover his tracks, where his tracks clearly show a trail through Moral/Immoral-Land, is unconvincing. As I've said before, his inability to hold, even for one little blog comment, to his stated beliefs about morality is staggering. And again the throwaway "cannot speak of moral facts"; he knows exactly what he's trying to say.
And for the hundredth time, who cares what he thinks?
Let me propose extending his "not facts, just opinions, since there are no facts, but I still think what I have to say has value for others, else I wouldn't be saying these things, now would I?" passive-aggressive paradigm to other areas of life and knowledge.
So, since one can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts, I passionately hold and want to articulate that evolution is false and Intelligent Design is true. Now, according to the JN, there's no way to bring evidence for or against his assertions of what he finds morally praiseworthy or reprehensible. Similarly, because I say so, and because I passionately hold to this opinion, my viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's.
I passionately believe that the blue sky is a fuzzy blanket of happiness that God pulls over the despairing blackness of the night sky, and removes every evening. I also passionately hold that the stars are little pinpricks in the Dyson sphere-like canopy that envelopes the Earth, and God's glory, which is found in full force behind the canopy, shines through those pricks just a little bit, in order to put happy smiles on the faces of children throughout the world.
I passionately hold that mixing common household ingredients together will produce gold. (Next time, I vow to use just a little more Pine-Sol!) Last time, I mixed baking soda, vinegar, and dish soap. Even though the resulting sludge did not resemble gold as I usually experience it, that's OK b/c I know that what I passionately hold is worth expressing, and so it has value for myself and others. Hmm, where's the nearest pawn shop?
I passionately hold that since humans share a great deal of genetic code in common with broccoli, I can treat humans just like I treat broccoli. That is, I decapitate broccoli and eat it in salad. So...
I passionately hold that the President ordering the US Mint to print $3 billion in non-sequential $20 bills and giving them all to me will drastically improve the US economy. Drastically.
Remember another thing here - a very valid criticism I often level against atheists like the JN is that they frequently commit Hume's naturalistic fallacy and confuse IS statements with OUGHT statements. To wit - just because (for the sake of argument) gratuitous suffering IS/EXISTS gives us no information about any obligation, no directive as far as how we ought to respond to that suffering. Do we imprison the rapist, or do we join him in raping his victims? Without some external paradigm to provide moral direction to us, the bare fact of "this man is forcing these girls to have sex with him and they don't want to" leads neither to "I ought to stop him" nor "I ought to help him".
Thus, only IS statements exist. (Thus, atheism is the ultimate "Meh".) What else are IS statements? Everything I just said about science, evolution, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, and economics! Take the Jolly Nihilist's contention a little further than he has apparently thought it through and you arrive at a fantasyland where reality is limited only by your imagination, boys and girls!
During our fairly long history of discussion and debate, I have often accused him (most notably, here) of inconsistency with respect to the way he deals with questions of morality, of should and of ought. On the one hand, he'll say:
Which is why my opinions are not facts, nor do I pretend they are or otherwise mask them as such. (source)
One can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts. (source)
Again, though I cannot speak of moral facts or objective right and wrong, this doctrine is positively noxious and almost staggering in its inhumane cruelty. (source)
Then he'll turn around and say things like:
...a charlatan associated therewith vomited up nonsense about homosexuals living in sin and just begging to be thrown into the fire pit of hell (a place, incidentally, which I deconstruct in my own latest blog post). The individuals upon whom the vomit was spewed. (source)
...mindless theological inculcation...sexual-orientation-modification experiments...fire pit of eternal torture and savagery. What beneficence...who would be harming nobody, bothering nobody, making miserable nobody...To prostrate oneself before such a pristine conception of hideousness… I dunno… I find it sad...Again, though I cannot speak of moral facts or objective right and wrong, this doctrine is positively noxious and almost staggering in its inhumane cruelty. (source)
Throwing out a token "but it's not immoral" to cover his tracks, where his tracks clearly show a trail through Moral/Immoral-Land, is unconvincing. As I've said before, his inability to hold, even for one little blog comment, to his stated beliefs about morality is staggering. And again the throwaway "cannot speak of moral facts"; he knows exactly what he's trying to say.
And for the hundredth time, who cares what he thinks?
Let me propose extending his "not facts, just opinions, since there are no facts, but I still think what I have to say has value for others, else I wouldn't be saying these things, now would I?" passive-aggressive paradigm to other areas of life and knowledge.
So, since one can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts, I passionately hold and want to articulate that evolution is false and Intelligent Design is true. Now, according to the JN, there's no way to bring evidence for or against his assertions of what he finds morally praiseworthy or reprehensible. Similarly, because I say so, and because I passionately hold to this opinion, my viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's.
I passionately believe that the blue sky is a fuzzy blanket of happiness that God pulls over the despairing blackness of the night sky, and removes every evening. I also passionately hold that the stars are little pinpricks in the Dyson sphere-like canopy that envelopes the Earth, and God's glory, which is found in full force behind the canopy, shines through those pricks just a little bit, in order to put happy smiles on the faces of children throughout the world.
I passionately hold that mixing common household ingredients together will produce gold. (Next time, I vow to use just a little more Pine-Sol!) Last time, I mixed baking soda, vinegar, and dish soap. Even though the resulting sludge did not resemble gold as I usually experience it, that's OK b/c I know that what I passionately hold is worth expressing, and so it has value for myself and others. Hmm, where's the nearest pawn shop?
I passionately hold that since humans share a great deal of genetic code in common with broccoli, I can treat humans just like I treat broccoli. That is, I decapitate broccoli and eat it in salad. So...
I passionately hold that the President ordering the US Mint to print $3 billion in non-sequential $20 bills and giving them all to me will drastically improve the US economy. Drastically.
Remember another thing here - a very valid criticism I often level against atheists like the JN is that they frequently commit Hume's naturalistic fallacy and confuse IS statements with OUGHT statements. To wit - just because (for the sake of argument) gratuitous suffering IS/EXISTS gives us no information about any obligation, no directive as far as how we ought to respond to that suffering. Do we imprison the rapist, or do we join him in raping his victims? Without some external paradigm to provide moral direction to us, the bare fact of "this man is forcing these girls to have sex with him and they don't want to" leads neither to "I ought to stop him" nor "I ought to help him".
Thus, only IS statements exist. (Thus, atheism is the ultimate "Meh".) What else are IS statements? Everything I just said about science, evolution, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, and economics! Take the Jolly Nihilist's contention a little further than he has apparently thought it through and you arrive at a fantasyland where reality is limited only by your imagination, boys and girls!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Imagine Darwinists were advancing the conversation
The Jolly Nihilist has posted his thoughts on Coyne's latest book - Why Evolution Is True, which I've read - as well as Dick Dawk's The Greatest Show on Earth, which I don't.
He's attempting to convince us to accept Darwinian evolution. Strangely enough, he never tells us why we'd want to do that, if nihilism is true. Why not just leave everyone alone and cut butterflies into your ankles in the corner?
Anyway, the whole thing is an utter failure to interact with the creationist position in any meaningful way or to understand the problem of the internal critique for the Darwinian position.
I'd encourage you to read the post before continuing here, as this will be sort of stream-of-consciousness as you go down his post.
Creator is devious
Um, He told you exactly how it all went down in the Bible.
But you, in your intentional blindness and using pitifully limited methods, are looking for ways to prove Him wrong. You're deceiving yourself. Don't project your guilt onto others. Didn't your mother teach you that's not nice?
Let's see.
Assume uniformitarianism without argument? Check.
-With respect to tectonics. Check.
-With respect to half-lives. Check.
Assume you have any useful info about the quantity of decay at the time of creation. Check.
Jerry Coyne writes, “Several radioisotopes usually occur together, so the dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariably agree.”
Circular self-reference as argument? Check.
Failure to interact with Henry Gee's In Search of Deep Time and mindlessly repeat old canards about the utility of the fossil record? Check.
Failure to interact with Cambrian explosion? Check.
By contrast, land mammals, reptiles, amphibians and freshwater fish would have extreme difficulty colonizing an oceanic island
Assume that it is definite that they were NEVER there and NEVER went extinct and that we just haven't yet found their fossils? Check.
Wasteful
Failure to take sin and the Fall into account, even though it's at the very heart of the Christian conception of redemptive history? Check and double-check. Atheists virtually never do this, and it's amazing.
Advance the conversation! Please! We're begging you.
Creator is idiotic
Presume to correct Him on sthg that you've never even gotten close to accomplishing yourself? Check.
Forget sin and the Fall (again)? Check.
recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals
Argument from ignorance.
Here it is:
P1) Recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals exists.
P2) I don't know why a creator would do it that way/I wouldn't've.
Ergo,
C) Stupid.
WOW! I'm bowled over by this forceful argumentation from Dick Dawk.
Finally, failure to interact with the EAAN? Check.
He's attempting to convince us to accept Darwinian evolution. Strangely enough, he never tells us why we'd want to do that, if nihilism is true. Why not just leave everyone alone and cut butterflies into your ankles in the corner?
Anyway, the whole thing is an utter failure to interact with the creationist position in any meaningful way or to understand the problem of the internal critique for the Darwinian position.
I'd encourage you to read the post before continuing here, as this will be sort of stream-of-consciousness as you go down his post.
Creator is devious
Um, He told you exactly how it all went down in the Bible.
But you, in your intentional blindness and using pitifully limited methods, are looking for ways to prove Him wrong. You're deceiving yourself. Don't project your guilt onto others. Didn't your mother teach you that's not nice?
Let's see.
Assume uniformitarianism without argument? Check.
-With respect to tectonics. Check.
-With respect to half-lives. Check.
Assume you have any useful info about the quantity of decay at the time of creation. Check.
Jerry Coyne writes, “Several radioisotopes usually occur together, so the dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariably agree.”
Circular self-reference as argument? Check.
Failure to interact with Henry Gee's In Search of Deep Time and mindlessly repeat old canards about the utility of the fossil record? Check.
Failure to interact with Cambrian explosion? Check.
By contrast, land mammals, reptiles, amphibians and freshwater fish would have extreme difficulty colonizing an oceanic island
Assume that it is definite that they were NEVER there and NEVER went extinct and that we just haven't yet found their fossils? Check.
Wasteful
Failure to take sin and the Fall into account, even though it's at the very heart of the Christian conception of redemptive history? Check and double-check. Atheists virtually never do this, and it's amazing.
Advance the conversation! Please! We're begging you.
Creator is idiotic
Presume to correct Him on sthg that you've never even gotten close to accomplishing yourself? Check.
Forget sin and the Fall (again)? Check.
recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals
Argument from ignorance.
Here it is:
P1) Recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals exists.
P2) I don't know why a creator would do it that way/I wouldn't've.
Ergo,
C) Stupid.
WOW! I'm bowled over by this forceful argumentation from Dick Dawk.
Finally, failure to interact with the EAAN? Check.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
An entire building made of concrete
From the Jolly Nihilist's latest answer:
I don't have a whole lot to say in response to the Jolly Nihilist's latest post, actually. I'm pretty happy with what he's said, and so there might only be a little more fleshing-out to do before I spend some time on his extension of the Flying Ethereal Cosmic Flying Catfish Monster business.
But Vox Veritatis and I put our heads together and came up with some questions to ask him.
A note before the questions - Keep in mind that the JN has retreated to this admission of the faith-scaffolding b/c it has become clear that his First Principle - that evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth - cannot justify itself. Any attempt to do so ends up in an infinite regress.
1) I know you didn't continue with the scaffolding of faith. Why didn't you keep relying on faith? After all, you consider that faith was sufficient to get you to your big First Principle that you find so attractive, while that FP could never get you there by itself.
2) Why did you choose this FP? It seems a completely arbitrary standard. Why not the equally-but-no-less-arbitrary "mustard is the best way to discover truth"? Mustard as FP is not self-justifying either, but one could just as easily make evidence-free faith appeals to it, just as you have to your evidentialist FP.
I don't expect the JN to go this route, but rather other commenters - the fact that mustard is a prima facie silly example makes no difference. Unless the argument for the evidentialist FP is successful, it is just as arbitrary as mustard.
And remember - the JN cannot say "I chose this FP b/c it seems to me to be the best way to live in this world", b/c then I'd request evidence that it is, and we're back where we started - at the choice between faith and an infinite regress of evidence, and this question itself leads to the infinite regress.
3) The JN said:
I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure you would claim that your life is rife with appeals to evidence. That's the best way to discover truth, after all.
So it goes like this:
(top)
| Answer |
| Question |
| Evidentialist FP |
| Faith scaffolding |
(bottom)
You appeal to something more basic to answer less basic questions. In doing so, how is it an avoidance of appealing to the faith foundation-scaffolding? This question is meant to unmask atheists' widespread allergy to claiming that their position is faith-based. Faith is for wackos and fundies, after all, not for rational people like atheists with rational positions like atheism.
4) In what way is this evidentialism thing a FIRST Principle since faith precedes it logically?
Faith indeed played a role in permitting my foundation—evidentialism—to be laid. However, once in possession of a foundation upon which to build, the temporary scaffolding (faith) became outmoded…no longer needed.
I don't have a whole lot to say in response to the Jolly Nihilist's latest post, actually. I'm pretty happy with what he's said, and so there might only be a little more fleshing-out to do before I spend some time on his extension of the Flying Ethereal Cosmic Flying Catfish Monster business.
But Vox Veritatis and I put our heads together and came up with some questions to ask him.
A note before the questions - Keep in mind that the JN has retreated to this admission of the faith-scaffolding b/c it has become clear that his First Principle - that evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth - cannot justify itself. Any attempt to do so ends up in an infinite regress.
1) I know you didn't continue with the scaffolding of faith. Why didn't you keep relying on faith? After all, you consider that faith was sufficient to get you to your big First Principle that you find so attractive, while that FP could never get you there by itself.
2) Why did you choose this FP? It seems a completely arbitrary standard. Why not the equally-but-no-less-arbitrary "mustard is the best way to discover truth"? Mustard as FP is not self-justifying either, but one could just as easily make evidence-free faith appeals to it, just as you have to your evidentialist FP.
I don't expect the JN to go this route, but rather other commenters - the fact that mustard is a prima facie silly example makes no difference. Unless the argument for the evidentialist FP is successful, it is just as arbitrary as mustard.
And remember - the JN cannot say "I chose this FP b/c it seems to me to be the best way to live in this world", b/c then I'd request evidence that it is, and we're back where we started - at the choice between faith and an infinite regress of evidence, and this question itself leads to the infinite regress.
3) The JN said:
I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure you would claim that your life is rife with appeals to evidence. That's the best way to discover truth, after all.
So it goes like this:
(top)
| Answer |
| Question |
| Evidentialist FP |
| Faith scaffolding |
(bottom)
You appeal to something more basic to answer less basic questions. In doing so, how is it an avoidance of appealing to the faith foundation-scaffolding? This question is meant to unmask atheists' widespread allergy to claiming that their position is faith-based. Faith is for wackos and fundies, after all, not for rational people like atheists with rational positions like atheism.
4) In what way is this evidentialism thing a FIRST Principle since faith precedes it logically?
Friday, September 12, 2008
Evasive tactics
Today, we're dealing with the 1st half of the Jolly Nihilist's latest response to me on the topic of his First Principle.
I will have to say that I agree with the JN's definitions of the Cosmic 1st Principle and the Philosophical FP, and at the same time question their utility. But it seems that the PFP is the best one can hope for out of a atheist nihilist, who believes that there was nothing, then a horrendous space kablooie, then a void filled with disparate kinds of matter, then a planet, then rocks, then from rock, life! And best of all, it just happened.
At 2nd glance, however, the PFP is a cop-out. It is "an indivisible, unsplittable foundation of human thought." And thus this principle did not exist before humanity did. Further, one has to ask whether it existed before the 1st person thought about these Big Questions. Could this PFP be only a few hundred years old, or less?
He goes on:
Evidentialism, as I embrace it, might be insufficient according to CFP standards but, once again, it is not a CFP.
But that's not the challenge I raised. It is my claim that the PFP has not responded to my challenges to it, contained here. Apparently, the JN's strategy is not to answer the challenges (he can't, anyway) but rather to define his "principle" so that it covers less ground. He's painted himself into a corner - his FP explains very little, and faced with further challenges, if he continues the pattern, it will explain almost nothing.
So, to review, his FP:
1) doesn't cover or explain anything before human thought appeared.
2) doesn't cover or explain anything, furthermore, before the first human who thought of it, thought of it.
3) is taken on faith (see point #1 in the original challenge).
4) is completely arbitrary (since he can, of course, marshal no evidential argument in its favor, since to do so would beg the question entirely).
5) can't pass its own test.
6) can't survive without smuggling in all sorts of other concepts he didn't mention. It's not a *FIRST* principle at all, but rather a tied-for-first-with-lots-of-other principles. Which is cheating. I have ONE First Principle. That's why it's called a FIRST principle.
7) tells us nothing about what we OUGHT TO do with the information we have, even if we grant that it is sufficient to overcome the first 6 challenges.
My FP does.
In regard to #5, the JN says:
one can marshal evidence to demonstrate evidence’s utility
He's been saying that for quite some time.
He has not explained how he escapes the problem of the infinite regress, and given that he's had at least 2 chances to do so, I don't know if he plans to try.
Although I have never directly observed my brain, it has been seen before.
The JN completely misunderstands the point.
I am not questioning that he has a physical brain inside his physical skull. However, if he were a brain in a vat:
1) the doctors seeing his brain were a figment of the chemical stimulations afforded his brain by the vat. They don't really exist.
2) Further, he never fell down the basement stairs.
3) Also, I don't buy this undocumented story that he fell down the stairs at one year old. Where are the multiple unbiased witnesses? The videotape proof? I mean, how likely is it that someone would fall down the stairs? Not very likely, right?
(Point #3 is sarcastic, mocking atheists' frequent challenges to the Resurrection of Christ, etc. It's not a strong argument.)
4) The JN says: I am still a living, thinking, conscious human.
You mean, YOU THINK you are, but in reality you're deceived.
See, I am demanding evidence that the JN is not a brain in a vat and nothing more, and he's giving me answers that are just as easily accounted-for in a brain-in-a-vat scenario. I thought he was supposed to marshal evidence!
The JN goes on to admit it:
Can I be certain there is no Cartesian Demon? No, I cannot.
Agreed. You can't, but I can.
Further, if the JN can't be certain there is no Cartesian Demon, neither can he be certain that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. I'm not saying he's said he's sure TGOTB doesn't exist, it's just a sidenote.
The Cartesian Demon’s construct would be reality, in every sense of the word we normally use.
Except for the fact that it *wouldn't* be reality. It would be fantasy, and it would SEEM to be reality. But lots of things aren't what they seem.
even if [the Cartesian Demon theory is true], nothing significant changes for us regarding method [of truth discovery].
Not in the world created for you by the CartDem, true. But the world the CartDem created for you is not real. Its mathematics are made up. Its physics are made up. Its morality (if one exists) is made up. Your brain is not transported by your physical body to different locations, doesn't sleep, doesn't love, etc. It is in a vat with electrodes stuck in it. It's unpleasant, but like you said, you can't rule it out and have no evidence to the contrary.
One cannot claim just anything to be manifest; in order for that word to be applicable, the fact at hand must be blindingly obvious
Neither the fact that you're a brain in a vat nor the fact that you're not a brain in a vat are blindingly obvious. Let's be consistent here.
Incidentally, the fact that actual infinites don't exist IS blindingly obvious, and that's a problem for your position in multiple ways.
The sun’s existence is manifest
Why? B/c you think you saw it? I have other possible explanations for it.
Perhaps it's a giant lamp created by highly-advanced extraterrestrial life.
Incidentally, this solution is far more harmonious with Occam's Razor than the literally billions of causes and forces that would have had to be marshaled to form a star with a planet like ours.
I, by clear contrast, am concerned with the world of experience.
Which, for all you know and for all the evidence you CAN'T marshal, is illusory.
My PFP accepts certain things as “granted,”
On faith. But this runs afoul of my 3rd point in the original post.
Since he has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with "faith is the best way to discover truth"? Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that? Why go with what failed him in this most important, overarching question of First Principle?
the Chinese express bafflement as to why, if god has revealed himself, he has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing them
Oh, that must by why the vast, vast majority of humankind throughout history has believed in the supernatural and in the idea that the world was created by some entity (leading them many times into paganism).
Ancient Chinese knew about God. Who cares if modern China has largely wiped out that idea? I recommend Don Richardson's Eternity In Their Hearts for anyone who's interested in this question.
I have been unfailingly clear in my rejection of moral truth.
Sometimes, and then other times you just put the Papal mitre right back on and make moral judgments, as if you expect anyone else should care about them. I call 'em like I see 'em, and I call inconsistency. Only I've done it over and over again. On this, the JN is incorrigible.
I'll deal with his response on the subject of the Flying Catfishghetti Etheremonster later. This is enough for now.
I will have to say that I agree with the JN's definitions of the Cosmic 1st Principle and the Philosophical FP, and at the same time question their utility. But it seems that the PFP is the best one can hope for out of a atheist nihilist, who believes that there was nothing, then a horrendous space kablooie, then a void filled with disparate kinds of matter, then a planet, then rocks, then from rock, life! And best of all, it just happened.
At 2nd glance, however, the PFP is a cop-out. It is "an indivisible, unsplittable foundation of human thought." And thus this principle did not exist before humanity did. Further, one has to ask whether it existed before the 1st person thought about these Big Questions. Could this PFP be only a few hundred years old, or less?
He goes on:
Evidentialism, as I embrace it, might be insufficient according to CFP standards but, once again, it is not a CFP.
But that's not the challenge I raised. It is my claim that the PFP has not responded to my challenges to it, contained here. Apparently, the JN's strategy is not to answer the challenges (he can't, anyway) but rather to define his "principle" so that it covers less ground. He's painted himself into a corner - his FP explains very little, and faced with further challenges, if he continues the pattern, it will explain almost nothing.
So, to review, his FP:
1) doesn't cover or explain anything before human thought appeared.
2) doesn't cover or explain anything, furthermore, before the first human who thought of it, thought of it.
3) is taken on faith (see point #1 in the original challenge).
4) is completely arbitrary (since he can, of course, marshal no evidential argument in its favor, since to do so would beg the question entirely).
5) can't pass its own test.
6) can't survive without smuggling in all sorts of other concepts he didn't mention. It's not a *FIRST* principle at all, but rather a tied-for-first-with-lots-of-other principles. Which is cheating. I have ONE First Principle. That's why it's called a FIRST principle.
7) tells us nothing about what we OUGHT TO do with the information we have, even if we grant that it is sufficient to overcome the first 6 challenges.
My FP does.
In regard to #5, the JN says:
one can marshal evidence to demonstrate evidence’s utility
He's been saying that for quite some time.
He has not explained how he escapes the problem of the infinite regress, and given that he's had at least 2 chances to do so, I don't know if he plans to try.
Although I have never directly observed my brain, it has been seen before.
The JN completely misunderstands the point.
I am not questioning that he has a physical brain inside his physical skull. However, if he were a brain in a vat:
1) the doctors seeing his brain were a figment of the chemical stimulations afforded his brain by the vat. They don't really exist.
2) Further, he never fell down the basement stairs.
3) Also, I don't buy this undocumented story that he fell down the stairs at one year old. Where are the multiple unbiased witnesses? The videotape proof? I mean, how likely is it that someone would fall down the stairs? Not very likely, right?
(Point #3 is sarcastic, mocking atheists' frequent challenges to the Resurrection of Christ, etc. It's not a strong argument.)
4) The JN says: I am still a living, thinking, conscious human.
You mean, YOU THINK you are, but in reality you're deceived.
See, I am demanding evidence that the JN is not a brain in a vat and nothing more, and he's giving me answers that are just as easily accounted-for in a brain-in-a-vat scenario. I thought he was supposed to marshal evidence!
The JN goes on to admit it:
Can I be certain there is no Cartesian Demon? No, I cannot.
Agreed. You can't, but I can.
Further, if the JN can't be certain there is no Cartesian Demon, neither can he be certain that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. I'm not saying he's said he's sure TGOTB doesn't exist, it's just a sidenote.
The Cartesian Demon’s construct would be reality, in every sense of the word we normally use.
Except for the fact that it *wouldn't* be reality. It would be fantasy, and it would SEEM to be reality. But lots of things aren't what they seem.
even if [the Cartesian Demon theory is true], nothing significant changes for us regarding method [of truth discovery].
Not in the world created for you by the CartDem, true. But the world the CartDem created for you is not real. Its mathematics are made up. Its physics are made up. Its morality (if one exists) is made up. Your brain is not transported by your physical body to different locations, doesn't sleep, doesn't love, etc. It is in a vat with electrodes stuck in it. It's unpleasant, but like you said, you can't rule it out and have no evidence to the contrary.
One cannot claim just anything to be manifest; in order for that word to be applicable, the fact at hand must be blindingly obvious
Neither the fact that you're a brain in a vat nor the fact that you're not a brain in a vat are blindingly obvious. Let's be consistent here.
Incidentally, the fact that actual infinites don't exist IS blindingly obvious, and that's a problem for your position in multiple ways.
The sun’s existence is manifest
Why? B/c you think you saw it? I have other possible explanations for it.
Perhaps it's a giant lamp created by highly-advanced extraterrestrial life.
Incidentally, this solution is far more harmonious with Occam's Razor than the literally billions of causes and forces that would have had to be marshaled to form a star with a planet like ours.
I, by clear contrast, am concerned with the world of experience.
Which, for all you know and for all the evidence you CAN'T marshal, is illusory.
My PFP accepts certain things as “granted,”
On faith. But this runs afoul of my 3rd point in the original post.
Since he has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with "faith is the best way to discover truth"? Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that? Why go with what failed him in this most important, overarching question of First Principle?
the Chinese express bafflement as to why, if god has revealed himself, he has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing them
Oh, that must by why the vast, vast majority of humankind throughout history has believed in the supernatural and in the idea that the world was created by some entity (leading them many times into paganism).
Ancient Chinese knew about God. Who cares if modern China has largely wiped out that idea? I recommend Don Richardson's Eternity In Their Hearts for anyone who's interested in this question.
I have been unfailingly clear in my rejection of moral truth.
Sometimes, and then other times you just put the Papal mitre right back on and make moral judgments, as if you expect anyone else should care about them. I call 'em like I see 'em, and I call inconsistency. Only I've done it over and over again. On this, the JN is incorrigible.
I'll deal with his response on the subject of the Flying Catfishghetti Etheremonster later. This is enough for now.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Evidentialism's bloody nose
A little history, since this has been percolating in my head for some time now.Here is the last time the Jolly Nihilist and I discussed this particular topic, that of evidence, epistemology, and how we know stuff on this blog.
The JN later responded with this post. I didn't have time then to get to it, and so I just read it, interacted a little in the combox, and let it go and kept thinking about it.
The important thing about this post is that the JN has laid out his First Principle, that "evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth". He says, "Because a First Principle is foundational—that is, it cannot be deduced from any other assumption or proposition—it cannot be 'split' or independently proved."
He goes on in the post to contradict himself: "evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting."
I agree with the 1st statement, so here we are going to analyse his FP to see if it is indeed self-subsisting. As an aside, let us remember that the God of the Bible as FP is fully self-subsisting and takes care of all these questions. It's good to follow Jesus.
Onto the points:
1) First of all, it's gratifying that the JN would say that his First Principle is a faith position. I have known that all along, but it's been quite a chore to get him to admit it. Such is obvious to the rest of us and I'm not used to seeing atheists admit stuff like this. In fact, "faith-free zone" seems to be an atheist shibboleth these days, so the JN is definitely breaking ranks with his atheist compadres, but that's OK - he is entitled to do that.
This is, in fact, partially a notification for said compadres - this guy is not exactly on your team. Don't get me wrong - the JN's approach certainly gets him out of the infinite regress (kind of) that I pull out on anyone else who claims they're an 'evidentialist'
Basically, it goes like this.
Atheist: Evidence is a good, maybe even the best, way to discover truth.
Me: What is your evidence for that?
Atheist: That I ask questions, formulate hypotheses, and then test them. The evidence that I find then allows me to form a conclusion.
Me: What is your evidence that formulating a hypothesis, testing it, and forming a conclusion is a good way to discover truth?
Atheist: It just is. It works.
Me: What is your evidence for that?
Etc.
I simply continue to apply what is (by the atheist's own claims) a really good/the best way to discover truth to the each answer given by the atheist. Unfortunately, the buck never stops - it is an infinite regress that no person can exhaust.
Quite unlike the Christian worldview, where we know that evidence is a very good way to discover truth b/c God is a logical God. He thinks like that and we think like Him. Thus, we can have confidence in evidence. The atheist has no reason to have confidence in evidence (on atheism) - he simply has faith in it. The JN admits this. Most atheists to whom I've spoken won't.
2) Why choose this position? Just because? Does it make the JN feel better? Does it help him sleep better at night?
There is literally no reason (that I can think of) to choose "evidence is the best way to discover truth" rather than "fortune cookies are the best way to discover truth" and hold to that (again, by faith), and go through life that way. It's completely arbitrary.
To make an argument that it is right is to attempt to employ evidence in its favor, which can't be done as we've seen.
Moreover, there's certainly no reason to think that anyone should hold to it. Let's even grant that it's true. There remains no reason that I can think of to believe it, and even less reason to attempt to convince anyone else that it is true. Why even express it out loud, given the situation?
3) His choice of a First Principle is arbitrary in another way.
Can the JN's worldview pass its own test?
Obviously not - we just went over that in the examination of the infinite regress. So he believes that this is true, but has no evidence for it.
Since he has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with "faith is the best way to discover truth"? Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that? Why go with what failed him in this most important, overarching question of First Principle?
This reminds me of the following conversation, for another illustration:
Richard: There is no absolute truth.
Matt: You mean, except for that statement?
Richard: What?
Matt: The statement "there is no absolute truth" is an absolute statement in itself.
Richard: Ah. OK, well, there is no absolute truth except for that statement.
Matt: So now there are at least 4 absolute truths: 1) the statement itself, 2) the idea that statements can carry meaning, 3) you exist to make the statement, 4) the idea of "except" exists. Etc.
Richard: Fine. There are however many absolute truths that are required to sustain the statement that "there is only one absolute - that there are no other absolutes," but no more.
Richard would be well-advised to shop around for a better worldview, not to mention a better catchphrase. So would the JN.
Incidentally, the Christian worldview passes its own test just fine. God is self-existent and is logical, good, holy, and transcendent. "I am that I am." "He is before all things and in Him all things hold together." Etc. We ground everything in the timeless, infinite, wise, intelligent, personal, communicative God of the Bible.
4) The JN is cheating. I asked him for a, one, (1) First Principle, and he provides one that is totally inadequate, to the point that he has to smuggle in numerous other concepts that he didn't mention.
He does not define evidence; the definition of evidence as "data interpreted within a grid to bolster a particular point of view" requires that there is such a thing as "data", "interpretation", "worldview grids", "bolstering", "particular" (as opposed to "general"), and "point of view".
His FP must smuggle in the concept that mind exists. Why didn't he mention that? How is data transformed magically into evidence without a mind to interpret it? Is there some sort of Cosmic Automatic Data-to-Evidence-Transformer Principle? Why didn't he mention it as part of his FP?
His FP must smuggle in the concept that he is not a brain in a vat. Certainly such a concept cannot be determined to be true or false by evidence, so one must take it on total blind faith or have a coherent worldview presupposition that rules it out (which I as a Christian do).
His FP offers no solution to the one and the many, which, again, evidence cannot speak to.
This is no FP at all. It is but a fragment, a shard, a tiny piece busted and pried out of a working worldview (that is, my own), with the hope that no one will notice or be able to analyse it to see it for what it is - a sham. It is Principle 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D...1n.
Basically, he pretends to offer a FP, a complete automobile, that will take us to the realm of proper and rational living. What he has in reality is a chassis with no tires, no engine, no steering wheel. He has to bring those in from a different manufacturer and file off the "biblical worldview, Serial Number 48590230" engraving on each item, until he has assembled a whole car. But that fails the question I asked him. My own worldview is a complete car. The JN apparently doesn't like its style (because he has an unregenerate and unrepentant mind and heart) though he has no moral reason to dislike it and, as we've seen, no rational reason to dislike it either. He has to use Christian parts to get anywhere close to a working car, and then he wants to race me?
5) This FP says precisely nothing about how to inform any sense of morality. Period.
When asked about what evidence one can use or that he uses to prove that, say, raping a child is wrong, he begs the question repeatedly and says that it's wrong b/c it causes pain. So what? What's your evidence that pain is wrong? And on and on it goes, as we've recently seen.
By contrast, the Christian FP comes complete with all sorts of moral guidance. Misinterpretations, misapplications, or partial/total abandonment thereof by the objects of its revelation (human beings) have nothing to do with the fact that the moral laws laid down by it are objective, unchanging, and definitional.
In short, the gauntlet has been thrown, the JN tried to pick it up, but wound up instead dropping it, breaking all the toes of his right foot. The Jolly Nihilist has nothing. I challenge him to do the only rational thing - flee to Jesus Christ, ask Him for forgiveness, and trust Him and Him alone for salvation.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
A brief comparison
"Then I learned that all moral judgments are 'value judgments,' that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either 'right' or 'wrong.' I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself--what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself--that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any 'reason' to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring--the strength of character--to throw off its shackles...I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable 'value judgment' that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these 'others?' Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as 'moral' or 'good' and others as 'immoral' or 'bad'? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me--after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and inhibited self."--Ted Bundy, Quoted from Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 5th edition, p.30
(Hat tip, Paul Manata)
"Make a moral statement and then try to prove it—from square one—with no presuppositional appeals. If objective moral “laws” exist, they should be like the universe’s physical constants…unaffected by one’s viewpoint...
These are issues about which we are ignorant because, even if facts are discoverable, we have no certainty as to what a relevant fact might be or how the facts might converge to form a conclusion. Is acting quality relevant to the “best film” question? Who decides what acting is good and what is wretched? Is being divisible by two relevant to the “best number” question? If so, who decides whether that would be propitious or deleterious?
Such is morality." -The Jolly Nihilist
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Wallowing
Oh, what a smorgasbord!
And at least one more (anon) who missed the satirical irony of the previous post. We'll get to that.
Thanks to Kyle who has stepped in to aid my aching fingers.
Paul C said:
Any moral statements I make are subjective.
Yes, I know. It's been my point for posts and posts now.
You have never denied that this is the case
Exactly. I've affirmed it vigorously.
you only argue that you find subjective moral statements inadequate
Inadequate to prescribe or proscribe actions to anyone else. Such as raping children. You can't tell anyone whether that action is OK or not OK, they should or shouldn't.
So we can live quite happily by our positions, as JN has said, with subjective morals;
Well, you SAY you can, but I don't believe you. You slip into objective moral language so often that it's about the most obvious thing I've ever seen that you can't.
But that's never been my argument, so it doesn't matter to me whether you can or can't.
Genesis 3:22 states: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil", clearly indicating that, prior to eating the fruit of the tree, Adam and Eve did not know good and evil.
And you didn't deal with the counterexamples I cited.
Unless you think the author had a brain aneurysm between 3:20 and 3:22, recovered several yrs later with no memory of what he wrote, and returned to continue on with no memory of the preceding, you need to find another interpretation. Your ineptitude is part of the point I was making. And it's not a knock on you - you're an atheist! Why *would* you learn proper biblical hermeneutics? I'm serious.
These are not predictions, they're merely observations and opinions.
Why aren't they predictions? Make your argument.
If humans are in fact inherently sinful, then it is not a prediction to say that humans are sinful
I said that FUTURE people will be sinful. That's a prediction. Of the future.
We're a pretty poor show
You mean, YOU THINK we are a poor show. You have no objective moral statement on this topic.
(See what I mean about your slipping?)
the JN said:
So I have not made any claims to moral fact.
Which was my point for this whole post.
no factually correct moral standards.
Right. So it's not a fact that raping a little girl is morally objectionable.
Is this not what I've been saying?
I was expressing the incompatibility of my opinions with Yahweh's supposed opinions.
And why should anyone care about your opinion on what YHWH said? I'm serious, not being sarcastic. You deny any rationally compelling fact that could persuade someone of the truth of your position; you deny any moral force to a statement such as this. Why even express it?
Rintintin said:
why even give us the opportunity to make a mess of it in the first place?
B/c He wanted to.
Lots of reasons, but that's the primary.
He is merciful, patient with sinners, hateful and wrathful to sin, compassionate, and salvific.
All of these attributes of God would have gone unexercised, unglorified, in a world without the Fall and Redemption.
Etc.
So he gives A+E no capacity to understand good and bad
Which is not the case, so let's go ahead and lay this to rest.
places a tree that he doesn't want them to eat from right in the exact location they live,
Along with hundreds or thousands of other trees.
then is angered when they did something bad even though they had no way to actually know what good and bad were.
Rather, then is angered when they did something bad despite His direct command not to do it.
Anonymous said:
Rho says this because he has made up what other people think and since Rho is always right, it must be what they actually think.
Wow, look who read the first paragraph of the post and neglected to read the rest!
Good grief Rho, try listening to what people are saying instead of telling us what we must be thinking.
Try reading the post and THEN commenting on it.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Flagellating a principle
The Jolly Nihilist has once again provided rich fodder for discussion. Many thanks to him for such thought-provoking comments. The gears were turning in my head, and they feel smoother now. Feels good. Now for a Dr. Pepper (to undo all the good that has heretofore been done)!
I'll divide the discussion into two sections, b/c it's getting a little mixed up. The 1st section deals with the JN's First Principle (FP) - that evidence is the best and most reliable way to know truth and also my FP - that the God of the Bible is there and that He is not silent.
The 2nd section will answer sundry other points that I found interesting enough to respond to.
---1st section---
Hey JN,
I'm not into flagellating deceased equines either... but sometimes bordering thereon can be illustrative. This may be one of those times.
The JN said:
That means I can employ evidence to support evidence’s utility.
1) Can you supply evidence for the statement: "I can employ evidence to support evidence’s utility"? What would it be?
2) Then can you supply evidence for the statement answering #1? What would it be?
3) Then can you supply evidence for the statement answering #2? What would it be?
4) Then can you supply evidence for the statement answering #3? What would it be?
5) Then can you explain how, since you're admitting here that your 1st Principle is not self-justifying, you escape the infinite regress as we've seen in points #1-4 here?
6) Then can you supply evidence for your answer to #5? What would it be?
7) Then can you supply evidence for your answer to #6? What would it be?
8) Then can you supply evidence for your answer to #7? What would it be?
9) Then can you supply evidence for your answer to #8? What would it be?
because mathematics cannot appeal to itself to demonstrate mathematics being the sole path to knowledge.
Precisely. You've given away the farm.
Neither can this 'evidential principle'. But my FP - that the God of the Bible is there and that He is not silent - can.
I merely recognize it to be by far our best, most reliable path.
What is your evidence for that?
And, once stated, what is your evidence for THAT?
Rhology said: What's your evidence for that assertion?
Yes, I'm 100% serious.
JN said:
Words have meanings
What is your evidence for that statement?
Again, I'm 100% serious.
If you wish to take that combination of letters and alternately define it, then go ahead.
No, I have no wish to redefine sthg here. Thing is, it's b/c you and I are both using the same standard of intelligibility here - that words DO have meaning and that are thoughts ARE reliably aimed in general at producing true beliefs. But that's b/c TGOTB lives and is not silent; He has provided the grounds for that.
I'm arguing that your worldview, your FP, cannot support this, cannot account for it.
The agreement to which I referred is manifest by the fact that all people—all over the world—make use of relevant facts every day in order to grasp truth.
What is your evidence for that?
Do *I* get to make these general, intuitive appeals to "everyone, everywhere" to substantiate MY FP too? How much would you accept that?
You have just utilized a relevant fact (brake lights) to reach a larger truth (the car in front is slowing)! You have employed evidence!
1) What is your evidence for that?
2) Yes I do, b/c TGOTB lives and has made the world such as it is - where things operate in such a manner that a brake light in front of me means that a collision is imminent unless I slow down. Again, my FP accts for this and yours doesn't.
I require evidence
Maybe I should know better than to ask this, but what is your evidence for that statement?
You declare man must have “saving faith,” but my constitution reviles faith as foolish.
You have (misplaced) faith in your FP! Looks like you revile faith selectively. And surprise surprise, the Bible describes you in exactly that way.
You…who, in your First Principle, seek to start the race at the finish line by presupposing, more or less, the entirety of Christianity.
As if you didn't start the race at the finish line by presupposing the truth of your evidential-oriented worldview. Remember all the times I pointed that out in Aug and Sept 2007? If not, I'd recommend rechecking that.
My metaphysical foundation—which is self-subsisting, by the way
Oh, DO explain that. It would very possibly sweep away many or even most of my objections here.
Your FP…if it could be called such…has no use for argumentation: Your desired conclusion has been neatly gift-wrapped.
1) So has yours been.
2) My FP is far fuller than yours.
3) The argumentation comes in when I check rival worldviews for their internal consistency, which is a prereq. That's why I spend a lot of time blowing up atheism; I find it useful to me personally, helpful to brethren in the faith, and quite illustrative of the bankruptcy of this "most refined" version of Western thinking.
---2nd section---
The JN said:
I meant to show—and, indeed, DID show—that your preferred argument can “prove” the Catfish just as easily as it can “prove” Yahweh. I simply have to define the Catfish meticulously.
And I already explained why that is full of hot air. Let the reader judge whether your simply repeating an already-responded-to point is a good argument.
if you truly believe that the text presents one—and only one—path to “salvation,” then you have deluded yourself.
Oh please. Are you seriously proposing that you are familiar enough with biblical hermeneutics and exegesis to make a serious argument on these grounds?
If one were inclined, one could craft a decent argument with these verses.
Yes, please do. Make it a post on your blog and let's see how well you do.
Come on…do you think I am so invested in the outcome of an internet tête-à -tête that I would lie in order to win a “point”?
No, rather I think you're self-deceived. But that kind of self-deception has a shelf life shorter, probably, than your physical life on this earth. With that in mind, I pray for your eventual repentance and salvation.
The notion of justice, at its root, and when applied to people, means that an individual’s behavior should influence how he is treated.
It "should"? What is your evidence for that?
Why can't you keep your hand out of the cookie jar? You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You yourself say there is insufficient methodology to make this kind of moral judgment, but you make them all over the place.
1. A deity is nothing more than a god or goddess. Therefore, this objection is flatly wrong.
You seem to be responding to a different point than the one I was responding to and thenceforth made.
The point is, Christian conversion experiences are lumped in Christian regions, whereas Hindu conversion experiences are lumped in Hindu regions. This is curious.
Well, I was agreeing. :-)
If Christianity were something other than an elaborate fairy tale, then brushes with Yahweh would be equally common in Hindu territories as in Christian territories.
1) Whoa, whoa, whoa. Huge leap of logic here. What is your argument for that statement? Why would we expect that?
2) I recommend Don Richardson's "Eternity in Their Hearts" for a rear naked choke on this argument, even if I grant it in principle.
3) Do you realise that there are more born-again Christians in China than in the USA? That there is a very significant missionary movement in India by Indians? That S Korea sends more missionaries overseas per capita than any other nation?
You seem to be a product of Western-centrism, more than you realise.
The nature of these “encounters with the divine,” such as specious Virgin Mary sightings, tends to be largely determined by the culture and geography of the deluded “witness.”
Of course, and I didn't deny that. And I use the quotation marks here like you do. ;-)
The following passage (Matt 24:25-35), which has the same gist, does not reference the transfiguration:
Oy vey. This is exactly what I mean. You jump from Matt 16 to Matt 24 and hope no one will notice! Did you even try to read ch 17-23 before jumping all the way to Matt 24? Why not just go whole hog and insist that I apply the same hermeneutical principles from the genealogy of Matt 1 to Matt 24?
The prophecy was failed and no effort of yours, however strenuous, can obscure it.
Well, since you didn't offer a counterargument nor present an exegesis of this Matt 24 psg, one can only guess at how you came to that conclusion. As it is, you come across as an atheist fundy - you just KNOW all this is nonsense and you don't NEED to prove it. It's OBVIOUS. To EVERYONE. Except MORONS and FLAT-EARTHERS like you who don't believe it!
nor am I solipsistic enough to imagine a creator
I think you're misusing the term. But I could be wrong.
Given all this, god easily could ensure each human ends up in heaven—or, at least, out of hell.
This is another attempt at entering into my worldview's turf to tell me how it should be.
What is your biblical argument for this statement? Your logical argument?
His idolatrous fetish for free will is crippling enough to undo all his loving intentions? Pitiful.
1) Cookie jar. Again.
2) How is it "idolatrous"? Make your argument.
3) What do you believe are His loving intentions? Where do you get that? A song you heard on the radio or something?
I'll divide the discussion into two sections, b/c it's getting a little mixed up. The 1st section deals with the JN's First Principle (FP) - that evidence is the best and most reliable way to know truth and also my FP - that the God of the Bible is there and that He is not silent.
The 2nd section will answer sundry other points that I found interesting enough to respond to.
---1st section---
Hey JN,
I'm not into flagellating deceased equines either... but sometimes bordering thereon can be illustrative. This may be one of those times.
The JN said:
That means I can employ evidence to support evidence’s utility.
1) Can you supply evidence for the statement: "I can employ evidence to support evidence’s utility"? What would it be?
2) Then can you supply evidence for the statement answering #1? What would it be?
3) Then can you supply evidence for the statement answering #2? What would it be?
4) Then can you supply evidence for the statement answering #3? What would it be?
5) Then can you explain how, since you're admitting here that your 1st Principle is not self-justifying, you escape the infinite regress as we've seen in points #1-4 here?
6) Then can you supply evidence for your answer to #5? What would it be?
7) Then can you supply evidence for your answer to #6? What would it be?
8) Then can you supply evidence for your answer to #7? What would it be?
9) Then can you supply evidence for your answer to #8? What would it be?
because mathematics cannot appeal to itself to demonstrate mathematics being the sole path to knowledge.
Precisely. You've given away the farm.
Neither can this 'evidential principle'. But my FP - that the God of the Bible is there and that He is not silent - can.
I merely recognize it to be by far our best, most reliable path.
What is your evidence for that?
And, once stated, what is your evidence for THAT?
Rhology said: What's your evidence for that assertion?
Yes, I'm 100% serious.
JN said:
Words have meanings
What is your evidence for that statement?
Again, I'm 100% serious.
If you wish to take that combination of letters and alternately define it, then go ahead.
No, I have no wish to redefine sthg here. Thing is, it's b/c you and I are both using the same standard of intelligibility here - that words DO have meaning and that are thoughts ARE reliably aimed in general at producing true beliefs. But that's b/c TGOTB lives and is not silent; He has provided the grounds for that.
I'm arguing that your worldview, your FP, cannot support this, cannot account for it.
The agreement to which I referred is manifest by the fact that all people—all over the world—make use of relevant facts every day in order to grasp truth.
What is your evidence for that?
Do *I* get to make these general, intuitive appeals to "everyone, everywhere" to substantiate MY FP too? How much would you accept that?
You have just utilized a relevant fact (brake lights) to reach a larger truth (the car in front is slowing)! You have employed evidence!
1) What is your evidence for that?
2) Yes I do, b/c TGOTB lives and has made the world such as it is - where things operate in such a manner that a brake light in front of me means that a collision is imminent unless I slow down. Again, my FP accts for this and yours doesn't.
I require evidence
Maybe I should know better than to ask this, but what is your evidence for that statement?
You declare man must have “saving faith,” but my constitution reviles faith as foolish.
You have (misplaced) faith in your FP! Looks like you revile faith selectively. And surprise surprise, the Bible describes you in exactly that way.
You…who, in your First Principle, seek to start the race at the finish line by presupposing, more or less, the entirety of Christianity.
As if you didn't start the race at the finish line by presupposing the truth of your evidential-oriented worldview. Remember all the times I pointed that out in Aug and Sept 2007? If not, I'd recommend rechecking that.
My metaphysical foundation—which is self-subsisting, by the way
Oh, DO explain that. It would very possibly sweep away many or even most of my objections here.
Your FP…if it could be called such…has no use for argumentation: Your desired conclusion has been neatly gift-wrapped.
1) So has yours been.
2) My FP is far fuller than yours.
3) The argumentation comes in when I check rival worldviews for their internal consistency, which is a prereq. That's why I spend a lot of time blowing up atheism; I find it useful to me personally, helpful to brethren in the faith, and quite illustrative of the bankruptcy of this "most refined" version of Western thinking.
---2nd section---
The JN said:
I meant to show—and, indeed, DID show—that your preferred argument can “prove” the Catfish just as easily as it can “prove” Yahweh. I simply have to define the Catfish meticulously.
And I already explained why that is full of hot air. Let the reader judge whether your simply repeating an already-responded-to point is a good argument.
if you truly believe that the text presents one—and only one—path to “salvation,” then you have deluded yourself.
Oh please. Are you seriously proposing that you are familiar enough with biblical hermeneutics and exegesis to make a serious argument on these grounds?
If one were inclined, one could craft a decent argument with these verses.
Yes, please do. Make it a post on your blog and let's see how well you do.
Come on…do you think I am so invested in the outcome of an internet tête-à -tête that I would lie in order to win a “point”?
No, rather I think you're self-deceived. But that kind of self-deception has a shelf life shorter, probably, than your physical life on this earth. With that in mind, I pray for your eventual repentance and salvation.
The notion of justice, at its root, and when applied to people, means that an individual’s behavior should influence how he is treated.
It "should"? What is your evidence for that?
Why can't you keep your hand out of the cookie jar? You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You yourself say there is insufficient methodology to make this kind of moral judgment, but you make them all over the place.
1. A deity is nothing more than a god or goddess. Therefore, this objection is flatly wrong.
You seem to be responding to a different point than the one I was responding to and thenceforth made.
The point is, Christian conversion experiences are lumped in Christian regions, whereas Hindu conversion experiences are lumped in Hindu regions. This is curious.
Well, I was agreeing. :-)
If Christianity were something other than an elaborate fairy tale, then brushes with Yahweh would be equally common in Hindu territories as in Christian territories.
1) Whoa, whoa, whoa. Huge leap of logic here. What is your argument for that statement? Why would we expect that?
2) I recommend Don Richardson's "Eternity in Their Hearts" for a rear naked choke on this argument, even if I grant it in principle.
3) Do you realise that there are more born-again Christians in China than in the USA? That there is a very significant missionary movement in India by Indians? That S Korea sends more missionaries overseas per capita than any other nation?
You seem to be a product of Western-centrism, more than you realise.
The nature of these “encounters with the divine,” such as specious Virgin Mary sightings, tends to be largely determined by the culture and geography of the deluded “witness.”
Of course, and I didn't deny that. And I use the quotation marks here like you do. ;-)
The following passage (Matt 24:25-35), which has the same gist, does not reference the transfiguration:
Oy vey. This is exactly what I mean. You jump from Matt 16 to Matt 24 and hope no one will notice! Did you even try to read ch 17-23 before jumping all the way to Matt 24? Why not just go whole hog and insist that I apply the same hermeneutical principles from the genealogy of Matt 1 to Matt 24?
The prophecy was failed and no effort of yours, however strenuous, can obscure it.
Well, since you didn't offer a counterargument nor present an exegesis of this Matt 24 psg, one can only guess at how you came to that conclusion. As it is, you come across as an atheist fundy - you just KNOW all this is nonsense and you don't NEED to prove it. It's OBVIOUS. To EVERYONE. Except MORONS and FLAT-EARTHERS like you who don't believe it!
nor am I solipsistic enough to imagine a creator
I think you're misusing the term. But I could be wrong.
Given all this, god easily could ensure each human ends up in heaven—or, at least, out of hell.
This is another attempt at entering into my worldview's turf to tell me how it should be.
What is your biblical argument for this statement? Your logical argument?
His idolatrous fetish for free will is crippling enough to undo all his loving intentions? Pitiful.
1) Cookie jar. Again.
2) How is it "idolatrous"? Make your argument.
3) What do you believe are His loving intentions? Where do you get that? A song you heard on the radio or something?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Wrapup with the Jolly Nihilist
Thus ends our most recent blogalogue. I have little doubt we will exchange blog pleasantries over virtual tea, crumpets, and steel-toed boots sometime in the future.
Hi JN,
Your response is mostly just repetitions of, on the one hand, your vehement claims to holding to moral relativism/skepticism, and OTOH moral statements that transparently are meant to be applicable to others. It's the cookie jar. Again.
Look, man, I feel you - cookies are tasty, particularly hypocricookies.
Just a few things...
-You fail to interact with my longstanding point regarding the comparative violence committed by "Christofascists" and Islamofascists. I'm disappointed, honestly. You are politically foolish.
-You repeat yourself on what seems to be your desire utilitarian outlook on morality, w/o taking the necessary step of explaining how we know whether the things we desire are good. And that's kind of the key question.
-You infuse the atheistic dogma of USSR Marxism/Leninism with a critique of "religious fanaticism", w/o even attempting to deal with the obvious fact that this either renders atheism a religious system by your own standards or reduces fanaticism to a system of behavior that has no necessary connection to religion at all.
-I love how you compare the questions "What is the funniest joke ever written?" and "Is rape wrong?" whether intentionally or unintentionally. That's simultaneously very funny, very sad, and very scary. One hopes you never achieve a position of influence...anywhere.
-You continue to retreat on the front of Christianity's doctrine of the treatment of women. Lack of interaction noted.
-You misapprehend more or less completely what I mean on your retreat to the OT, even though I have just 9 posts ago written on that very topic.
-You commit the Primitives Were Morons fallacy.
-You continue to commit the Perfect Computer Manual fallacy.
-You exercise an external (and therefore epistemologically pretty much invalid) critique on whether it's extraordinary that the Bible be God's Word.
And after all that:
-After all, you are to apologetics what the finest Oxford fairyologist is to the study of pixies, fairies and elven creatures.
I'll take that as a compliment. :-D
Nice talking to you.
Hi JN,
Your response is mostly just repetitions of, on the one hand, your vehement claims to holding to moral relativism/skepticism, and OTOH moral statements that transparently are meant to be applicable to others. It's the cookie jar. Again.
Look, man, I feel you - cookies are tasty, particularly hypocricookies.
Just a few things...
-You fail to interact with my longstanding point regarding the comparative violence committed by "Christofascists" and Islamofascists. I'm disappointed, honestly. You are politically foolish.
-You repeat yourself on what seems to be your desire utilitarian outlook on morality, w/o taking the necessary step of explaining how we know whether the things we desire are good. And that's kind of the key question.
-You infuse the atheistic dogma of USSR Marxism/Leninism with a critique of "religious fanaticism", w/o even attempting to deal with the obvious fact that this either renders atheism a religious system by your own standards or reduces fanaticism to a system of behavior that has no necessary connection to religion at all.
-I love how you compare the questions "What is the funniest joke ever written?" and "Is rape wrong?" whether intentionally or unintentionally. That's simultaneously very funny, very sad, and very scary. One hopes you never achieve a position of influence...anywhere.
-You continue to retreat on the front of Christianity's doctrine of the treatment of women. Lack of interaction noted.
-You misapprehend more or less completely what I mean on your retreat to the OT, even though I have just 9 posts ago written on that very topic.
-You commit the Primitives Were Morons fallacy.
-You continue to commit the Perfect Computer Manual fallacy.
-You exercise an external (and therefore epistemologically pretty much invalid) critique on whether it's extraordinary that the Bible be God's Word.
And after all that:
-After all, you are to apologetics what the finest Oxford fairyologist is to the study of pixies, fairies and elven creatures.
I'll take that as a compliment. :-D
Nice talking to you.
Monday, March 31, 2008
I, I...just...can't...help...it!
Since I go thru the trouble of writing this all up, I figure I'll just make it a blogspot rather than bury it in a combox. Responding to the Jolly Nihilist here. He talks a good game, but he canNOT keep his grubby little fingers off the cookie jar.
Hey JN,
You had said:
This type of authoritarianism—I call it moral narcissism—is the point of comparison.
Then where are your cries of "atheofascist" over The Dawkins' calling child abuse immoral? Why restrict this to the Abrahamic religions? There are nearly as many targets for your "-ofascist" label as there are religions out there. Why engage in such special pleading?
Well, on to your post:
However, I am doing no such thing
OK, so relativism is neither better nor worse than authoritarianism.
What's your argument, then, for choosing one over the other? Just whatever you feel like that day, or most days? Whether you have the wherewithal to inflict your ideas upon others or not?
Because it makes no sense for one to be coercive with respect to things about which one is ignorant.
This falls victim to the constant problem that your worldview provides you no way to say OUGHT. It's all just IS.
It may make no sense, but so what? Maybe Joe feels like it. Where's the prescriptive power in your statement? Why SHOULD Joe do that which makes sense? There's a reason we call these questions "moral" questions, as opposed to "arithmetic" or "fluid dynamics", you know.
If these are just opinions on your part, again, where's the prescriptive power? Why SHOULD anyone agree?
Why even make such statements? Why not just think them and be done with it? I'm serious.
it makes no sense for laws to be religiously derived.
1) Go start your own country and see how far you get with that.
2) Oh, the USSR already tried that. Well, maybe you can do better than they did.
3) On what basis would you argue that atheism would be able to justify laws of religious freedom? Humans have no universal rights on atheism. Freedom is not a mandate on atheism.
Recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion.
If only your camp would extend such courtesy to ID and not deny ID-ers tenure, a voice, etc, all the while thinking they were ignorant.
Does that work anywhere else? Recognition of ignorance in particle physics does not forbid formulation of opinion on black holes.
Recognition of chemical ignorance does not forbid formulation of opinion on whether I should mix ammonia and bleach and inhale the results, does it?
That's special pleading.
Your case is badly frayed here; I'll give you some asides here for the sundry peripheral questions.
Been wondering something - Where are these "Christofascists"? Compared to the very large number of Islamofascists, they are a speck if they exist at all. And their modus operandi is so different from jihadists as to warrant the serious question - why the "-ofascist" at the end of the appellation?
You need to point these people out and give a good reason to think they're acting in accord with a doctrine that could reasonably be thought to be of Christ; otherwise you're engaging in poisoning the well. Showing that their numbers even approach that of jihadists would help your case as well. It needs the help.
You said:
I am sure some Christians would beg to differ vis-Ã -vis sex toys.
Any idea what their argument would be?
...
Neither do I.
And sorry, I don't know what "felching" means, nor am I inclined to look it up on the Internet. If you care, you can email me.
True, your religion might preach equality in god’s eyes, but, on Earth, one gender clearly seems meant to dominate.
Your "seems" does not an argument make.
One need only remember the commandment addressing covetousness, which lumps thy neighbor’s wife in with that same neighbor’s ox and ass.
You have completely abandoned your original field of discourse on this topic, that of the "wives, submit to your husbands", since I provided you the context.
You're battered so you retreat to the OT, moving the goalposts. What will happen next time you're corrected? Are you going to cite the 1st Charter of the Woodsgrove, Montana Mountain Man Armed Enclave and try to say I'm bound by it? Please.
This is not a “clean break” from the Islamic misogyny you excoriate.
Deal with the hypothetical all you want. The Bible denies such hypotheticals - God doesn't change, can't be any other way. It's like asking me if God can microwave a burrito so hot that He can't eat it.
Presumably, when that verse was written, god knew quite well that some of his followers would misuse it in the context of hysterical hunts for witches
You're the one who's so fond of freewill. What's wrong if God is a fan of it too?
Man, God just can't win - you won't give Him credit either way!
What's He supposed to do? Zap them out of existence as soon as they start to think a wrong thought about the meaning of the Bible?
Besides, this is just one more moral judgment - you're trying to convince me that these hunts and these Scriptures which supposedly underpin them are morally objectionable. This dog only comes out when the meat is stinky enough, it would seem.
Knowing that god is also omnibenevolent
What does that word mean?
What gave you the idea that God is "omnibenevolent"?
it is not even clear from the Bible whether the creator of the universe is aware of Australia.
B/c it's not mentioned in the Bible? Wow - a ZINGER of an argument!
You've done better, JN. But always nice talking to you.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Nihilism just before Pascha
Responding again to the Jolly Nihilist:
To the reader, I'll be pointing out the JN's inconsistencies in the way he handles morality from time to time, but I'd encourage you to read his post 1st and see how many times you can pick them out yourself. I probably didn't get them all, but it's a useful exercise. The disconnect between profession and action on the part of so many atheists and postmodernists continues to amaze me.
Anyway,
I recognize our collective moral ignorance, and a relativistic view flows naturally therefrom.
But the relativistic view is a view in itself. You claim ignorance about the topic and then go ahead and take a position anyway. Why not just eschew any and all moral statements about everythg if you really believe that?
inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.
There's inflicting and there's inflicting. Surely you won't be so blind as to compare sharia law with laws banning the sale of sex toys!
Yet that's what you seem to be doing. That's one of the things that amazes me about these comparisons to Islam. You miss the forest for the trees. You can apparently hardly bear to NOT take a swipe at Christianity and so you miss the presence of the huge threat of people who want to blow you up.
However, if that truly is your stance (and I hope it is), then you must join me in condemning the Alabama law to which I am opposed....If Bible-inspired statutes, such as the one in Alabama, are applied to Christians and non-Christians alike, religious freedom is retarded.
B/c I believe in religious freedom? That doesn't follow. There is also public morality to think of. I won't support the free exercise of a religion that includes committing 4 murders a year as part of its pietistic exercise, for example.
I'm not saying I do support the law, but it's not for that reason.
Laws limit freedom, you know. You're not permitted to murder someone just for the heck of it, and that can retard religious freedom. We must ask "Which freedoms can be justifiably restricted?" rather than "Should religious freedom be restricted?"
unconventional sex is sinful
Rather, sex that is harmful or outside of marriage is that which is sinful. Nothing in the Bible really refers to sex toys.
If I lived in that state, I would be an atheist in name and belief, but would have to be a de facto Christian if I wanted to avoid legal harassment.
Do what you want, but Alabama is not Saudi Arabia. Seriously, stop acting like it is! You're making yourself look foolish and missing the bigger threat.
Is the latter cell “less evil” than the former?
On your worldview, neither is evil at all.
Just ghastly.
On your worldview, it's not ghastly. It's just painful. Pain is, pleasure is, neither is moral nor immoral. I'm going to hold you to your professed worldview even if you won't.
they certainly are antithetical to modern ideas about absolute equality
OK. Absent an argument why anyone should care, I'll just let this go.
you subscribe to a religion in which wives are supposed to submit to their husbands’ headship.
And, I shouldn't be surprised, you neglected (again) to mention anythg about the husbands' obligations and responsibilities. Pretty typical, though I have come to expect a little more than that from you.
you are a Christian who adheres slavishly to scripture.
I'm happy to admit this is the case.
It seems to me that, in your mind, your beliefs need not conform to popular wisdom, modern mores or even common sense.
Since popular wisdom is so often wrong, yes. Common sense is far from infallible as well.
As an example, just look at how long your moral relativism has lasted throughout your own post! You didn't make it 3 paragraphs before contradicting yourself.
Bearing that in mind, what if Jesus had explicitly preached that women should walk ten steps behind men, or that they never should show their faces in public, or that they never should shake hands with men?
I'd submit and conform to it.
Of course, that's not what He preached.
Again you spend time sniping at Christianity when you should be focusing on Islam. No hypotheticals needed there - they DO teach this stuff!
There is no known way to prove a moral statement or moral code; as such, we are left only with opinion.
Very well. Serious question - why then make all these moral statements, as if someone else should hold them? Why not just hold all moral judgments to yourself?
I do maintain, however, that such passages provided “theological cover” for the torturers, butchers and murderers
Absent an argument, I'll simply make the bare assertion to the contrary.
I would be willing to bet a large sum that, at the height of the witch-hunts, the aforequoted passage was recited more than once.
As if misuse of a passage of text means the text is to blame.
Obviously if I murdered 10 people and then appealed to this very blogpost in court, saying that I took your meaning to be that you were God and you commanded me to murder them, the judge would not and should not hold you responsible for that, right?
Is not Levitical law also “out of date,” as it were?
Violations of the moral law are not out of date, though the penalties are not necessarily the same.
I'll try to get that post out.
Should not that particular verse be retired from the contemporary gay rights discussion?
Given that
1) virtually no one in America understands the relationship of Old Testament law to New Testament times, and
2) 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 (among other NT passages) are clearer and easier to use,
I'd agree with that.
Again, not that bashing gays (literally or figuratively) is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.
by “witchcraft,” you apparently are referencing adults who indulge in children’s folly.
Not all of that stuff is simple parlor tricks. But I'm not a naturalist, so I attribute at least a small amount of that stuff, including miracles in other religions, to demonic activity.
(a) torture was used not to punish people for their “crimes” but in order to secure extravagant confessions, and (b) the charges oftentimes were jaw dropping in their ludicrousness.
Well, of course I wouldn't support those gross abuses.
And again, not that treating suspected "witches" this way is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.
If the Bible had contained different moral prescriptions—ones that your current self finds repugnant—would you have followed them?
It does contain such. "If you wish to be my disciple, take up your cross and follow me." That's far from easy and I fail every day. I don't want to do it; I prefer to do what *I* want to do b/c I'm selfish.
Dahmer was a serial murderer, rapist, necrophile and cannibal, I tend to be suspicious of anything he said.
Me too. That's why I said "***IF*** he truly repented" - remember?
Might murdering, raping, necrophiliac, cannibalistic Dahmer have pulled one final con job?
Very well might have, but he can't hide from God's eye.
exemplifies nothing more than pathetic cravenness.
Again, not that pathetic cravenness or the threatening people with hell is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.
You just can't seem to live up to your own worldview! Since you fit yours so badly, it's the least I can do to offer you one that would allow you to justify making moral claims like you keep doing, namely Christianity.
To the reader, I'll be pointing out the JN's inconsistencies in the way he handles morality from time to time, but I'd encourage you to read his post 1st and see how many times you can pick them out yourself. I probably didn't get them all, but it's a useful exercise. The disconnect between profession and action on the part of so many atheists and postmodernists continues to amaze me.
Anyway,
I recognize our collective moral ignorance, and a relativistic view flows naturally therefrom.
But the relativistic view is a view in itself. You claim ignorance about the topic and then go ahead and take a position anyway. Why not just eschew any and all moral statements about everythg if you really believe that?
inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.
There's inflicting and there's inflicting. Surely you won't be so blind as to compare sharia law with laws banning the sale of sex toys!
Yet that's what you seem to be doing. That's one of the things that amazes me about these comparisons to Islam. You miss the forest for the trees. You can apparently hardly bear to NOT take a swipe at Christianity and so you miss the presence of the huge threat of people who want to blow you up.
However, if that truly is your stance (and I hope it is), then you must join me in condemning the Alabama law to which I am opposed....If Bible-inspired statutes, such as the one in Alabama, are applied to Christians and non-Christians alike, religious freedom is retarded.
B/c I believe in religious freedom? That doesn't follow. There is also public morality to think of. I won't support the free exercise of a religion that includes committing 4 murders a year as part of its pietistic exercise, for example.
I'm not saying I do support the law, but it's not for that reason.
Laws limit freedom, you know. You're not permitted to murder someone just for the heck of it, and that can retard religious freedom. We must ask "Which freedoms can be justifiably restricted?" rather than "Should religious freedom be restricted?"
unconventional sex is sinful
Rather, sex that is harmful or outside of marriage is that which is sinful. Nothing in the Bible really refers to sex toys.
If I lived in that state, I would be an atheist in name and belief, but would have to be a de facto Christian if I wanted to avoid legal harassment.
Do what you want, but Alabama is not Saudi Arabia. Seriously, stop acting like it is! You're making yourself look foolish and missing the bigger threat.
Is the latter cell “less evil” than the former?
On your worldview, neither is evil at all.
Just ghastly.
On your worldview, it's not ghastly. It's just painful. Pain is, pleasure is, neither is moral nor immoral. I'm going to hold you to your professed worldview even if you won't.
they certainly are antithetical to modern ideas about absolute equality
OK. Absent an argument why anyone should care, I'll just let this go.
you subscribe to a religion in which wives are supposed to submit to their husbands’ headship.
And, I shouldn't be surprised, you neglected (again) to mention anythg about the husbands' obligations and responsibilities. Pretty typical, though I have come to expect a little more than that from you.
you are a Christian who adheres slavishly to scripture.
I'm happy to admit this is the case.
It seems to me that, in your mind, your beliefs need not conform to popular wisdom, modern mores or even common sense.
Since popular wisdom is so often wrong, yes. Common sense is far from infallible as well.
As an example, just look at how long your moral relativism has lasted throughout your own post! You didn't make it 3 paragraphs before contradicting yourself.
Bearing that in mind, what if Jesus had explicitly preached that women should walk ten steps behind men, or that they never should show their faces in public, or that they never should shake hands with men?
I'd submit and conform to it.
Of course, that's not what He preached.
Again you spend time sniping at Christianity when you should be focusing on Islam. No hypotheticals needed there - they DO teach this stuff!
There is no known way to prove a moral statement or moral code; as such, we are left only with opinion.
Very well. Serious question - why then make all these moral statements, as if someone else should hold them? Why not just hold all moral judgments to yourself?
I do maintain, however, that such passages provided “theological cover” for the torturers, butchers and murderers
Absent an argument, I'll simply make the bare assertion to the contrary.
I would be willing to bet a large sum that, at the height of the witch-hunts, the aforequoted passage was recited more than once.
As if misuse of a passage of text means the text is to blame.
Obviously if I murdered 10 people and then appealed to this very blogpost in court, saying that I took your meaning to be that you were God and you commanded me to murder them, the judge would not and should not hold you responsible for that, right?
Is not Levitical law also “out of date,” as it were?
Violations of the moral law are not out of date, though the penalties are not necessarily the same.
I'll try to get that post out.
Should not that particular verse be retired from the contemporary gay rights discussion?
Given that
1) virtually no one in America understands the relationship of Old Testament law to New Testament times, and
2) 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 (among other NT passages) are clearer and easier to use,
I'd agree with that.
Again, not that bashing gays (literally or figuratively) is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.
by “witchcraft,” you apparently are referencing adults who indulge in children’s folly.
Not all of that stuff is simple parlor tricks. But I'm not a naturalist, so I attribute at least a small amount of that stuff, including miracles in other religions, to demonic activity.
(a) torture was used not to punish people for their “crimes” but in order to secure extravagant confessions, and (b) the charges oftentimes were jaw dropping in their ludicrousness.
Well, of course I wouldn't support those gross abuses.
And again, not that treating suspected "witches" this way is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.
If the Bible had contained different moral prescriptions—ones that your current self finds repugnant—would you have followed them?
It does contain such. "If you wish to be my disciple, take up your cross and follow me." That's far from easy and I fail every day. I don't want to do it; I prefer to do what *I* want to do b/c I'm selfish.
Dahmer was a serial murderer, rapist, necrophile and cannibal, I tend to be suspicious of anything he said.
Me too. That's why I said "***IF*** he truly repented" - remember?
Might murdering, raping, necrophiliac, cannibalistic Dahmer have pulled one final con job?
Very well might have, but he can't hide from God's eye.
exemplifies nothing more than pathetic cravenness.
Again, not that pathetic cravenness or the threatening people with hell is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.
You just can't seem to live up to your own worldview! Since you fit yours so badly, it's the least I can do to offer you one that would allow you to justify making moral claims like you keep doing, namely Christianity.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
More from the Jolly Nihilist
Hi JN,
I'll post this same comment here and on the relevant post at my place.
First of all, you're not on the Wall of Shame b/c you actually answer questions! You're not afraid of a good tussle, you don't run away, you respond to charges made against your position. You respond with stuff that's on-topic. You don't moderate dissenting comments into oblivion. You don't confuse attacks on your position with attacks on YOU. Those are what have earned the denizens of the WoS their hallowed place. I appreciate your modus operandi a great deal.
The point I've been trying to make about Irony #1 is, if you will, a meta-point. Let me try to explain better, since I doubt I'm doing an adequate job. In arguing against the possibility of making overarching moral claims (like my position does, you're 100% right), you yourself make the same kinds of claims.
However, I think your latest offering might have clarified what you mean and so my argument would need to be revamped. Now, I'd argue that I am 100% justified in taking what I took from your original post, given the way you worded it, but now everythg changes. The irony is more or less removed to a different spot, one that's slightly less obvious.
Moving on to irony #2 (which I found, unfortunately, to be the less interesting of the 2, haha):
Nobody reading my essay could possibly think I was directly comparing suicide bombing with Alabama’s infantile law.
You yourself said this, though: "Of course, Rhology, you must recognize that my comparison was not of methods but of mindset."
But I agree that religious freedom (which I believe the US should have) should exist and that your statements about it are correct.
I readily admit that, at this moment and for the last few centuries, Muslims behave far worse than Christians do.
Well, I'm looking for more than that! :-D Islam behaved VERY badly its first 2 centuries of existence, as an institution. The medieval RCC was bad; institutional Islam was pretty bad too, enslaved and killed far more people, and took far more territory with the sword. In the name of God and in line with their religion (see the link I posted), as opposed to the Inquisition and Crusades, neither of which are fully justifiable on biblical grounds (though the Crusades are justifiable to a decent extent).
Does that make sense?
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” [1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)].
But where do you get misogyny out of that? The New Testament also affirms the ontological equality of men and women in Galatians 3:28-29 and says this in Ephesians 5:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
It's a distinction of role, not of nature.
And you're right - it's SERVANT leadership, much like Christ, the Lord and Creator of the universe, space, time, matter, and energy, washing the disgusting, dirty, and manure-encrusted feet of His disciples and then dying for them, abandoned by them. That's my calling as a Christian husband.
702 were tried and executed in Protestant territories
OK, I didn't realise that about Prot territories. Of course, the Salem trials were Prot, (and executed a whopping <20 witches) but this still compares very favorably with Islam. It's not as simple as this, though. The state and church were not separated or barely separated at that time. Principles like American religious freedom were more or less unheard-of; it's anachronistic to judge them by our modern standards. Finally, I'll just remind everyone that you said above that you can't extend moral judgments beyond yourself anyway.
OK, two more: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”
It's not that I deemphasise certain psgs b/c I feel like it. The key is that this law and so many others in the OT Law were CIVIL laws given for the governance of OT Israel, which was a nation, a theocracy. OT Israel no longer exists. Those civil laws don't apply.
Tell you what, I'll post on that issue fairly soon and you can read and learn a bit.
1)“Neither [witchcraft nor sorcery] exists and neither ever has.” I also would like to grant you the opportunity to declare, for all to read, that 2) the pious people who tortured and murdered “witches” centuries ago, in your judgment, are presently in that place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
1) I disagree with this statement. They do exist. Why else would the OT Law prohibit them?
Shoot, they exist TODAY! Have you never heard of a séance, channeling, Ouija boards, mediums, Tarot card readers, thaumaturgists...?
2) I can make no statement of certainty on the state of most anyone's soul. What I can say is that those who participated in these persecutions were not wholly justified in doing so. It's not as clear-cut as I think we like to make it in modern times, but I think you wouldn't want to be judged by the standards of 24th-century people when they dig up a hard disc drive with your blog contents saved on it, someday. You'd want to be judged in the context of your thoughts, your environment.
Witchcraft was illegal in those areas at that time and was (I'd argue more or less rightly) considered a threat to civil security, so it was treated as a crime. It's not how I'd do it, but it has a fair amount to commend it - the nation would be freer of the evil influence of the occult, the people would be holier in conduct, the gross immorality that usually accompanies witchcraft would be less present, etc.
"Murder" is never justified, so I grant that. Executions after trial are quite another matter.
I don't see why torture would be justified, so I grant that.
On a related note, I believe it is documented on better-than-urban-legend grounds that Jeffrey Dahmer converted to Christianity shortly before his death. If that is true, if he placed his faith and reliance on Jesus Christ to forgive him of his sin and give him eternal life, he is my brother in Christ and will spend eternity in heaven in the presence of Jesus. I am a great sinner, Jesus Christ is a greater Savior. These Inquisitors, if they had saving faith in Christ, will be saved. If they didn't, they are condemned and stand in the exact same place as you do - hellbound. I urge you to turn away from your sin and repent, believe in the Savior. You won't regret it; I can promise you that much.
Peace,
Rhology
I'll post this same comment here and on the relevant post at my place.
First of all, you're not on the Wall of Shame b/c you actually answer questions! You're not afraid of a good tussle, you don't run away, you respond to charges made against your position. You respond with stuff that's on-topic. You don't moderate dissenting comments into oblivion. You don't confuse attacks on your position with attacks on YOU. Those are what have earned the denizens of the WoS their hallowed place. I appreciate your modus operandi a great deal.
The point I've been trying to make about Irony #1 is, if you will, a meta-point. Let me try to explain better, since I doubt I'm doing an adequate job. In arguing against the possibility of making overarching moral claims (like my position does, you're 100% right), you yourself make the same kinds of claims.
However, I think your latest offering might have clarified what you mean and so my argument would need to be revamped. Now, I'd argue that I am 100% justified in taking what I took from your original post, given the way you worded it, but now everythg changes. The irony is more or less removed to a different spot, one that's slightly less obvious.
Moving on to irony #2 (which I found, unfortunately, to be the less interesting of the 2, haha):
Nobody reading my essay could possibly think I was directly comparing suicide bombing with Alabama’s infantile law.
You yourself said this, though: "Of course, Rhology, you must recognize that my comparison was not of methods but of mindset."
But I agree that religious freedom (which I believe the US should have) should exist and that your statements about it are correct.
I readily admit that, at this moment and for the last few centuries, Muslims behave far worse than Christians do.
Well, I'm looking for more than that! :-D Islam behaved VERY badly its first 2 centuries of existence, as an institution. The medieval RCC was bad; institutional Islam was pretty bad too, enslaved and killed far more people, and took far more territory with the sword. In the name of God and in line with their religion (see the link I posted), as opposed to the Inquisition and Crusades, neither of which are fully justifiable on biblical grounds (though the Crusades are justifiable to a decent extent).
Does that make sense?
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” [1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)].
But where do you get misogyny out of that? The New Testament also affirms the ontological equality of men and women in Galatians 3:28-29 and says this in Ephesians 5:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
It's a distinction of role, not of nature.
And you're right - it's SERVANT leadership, much like Christ, the Lord and Creator of the universe, space, time, matter, and energy, washing the disgusting, dirty, and manure-encrusted feet of His disciples and then dying for them, abandoned by them. That's my calling as a Christian husband.
702 were tried and executed in Protestant territories
OK, I didn't realise that about Prot territories. Of course, the Salem trials were Prot, (and executed a whopping <20 witches) but this still compares very favorably with Islam. It's not as simple as this, though. The state and church were not separated or barely separated at that time. Principles like American religious freedom were more or less unheard-of; it's anachronistic to judge them by our modern standards. Finally, I'll just remind everyone that you said above that you can't extend moral judgments beyond yourself anyway.
OK, two more: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”
It's not that I deemphasise certain psgs b/c I feel like it. The key is that this law and so many others in the OT Law were CIVIL laws given for the governance of OT Israel, which was a nation, a theocracy. OT Israel no longer exists. Those civil laws don't apply.
Tell you what, I'll post on that issue fairly soon and you can read and learn a bit.
1)“Neither [witchcraft nor sorcery] exists and neither ever has.” I also would like to grant you the opportunity to declare, for all to read, that 2) the pious people who tortured and murdered “witches” centuries ago, in your judgment, are presently in that place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
1) I disagree with this statement. They do exist. Why else would the OT Law prohibit them?
Shoot, they exist TODAY! Have you never heard of a séance, channeling, Ouija boards, mediums, Tarot card readers, thaumaturgists...?
2) I can make no statement of certainty on the state of most anyone's soul. What I can say is that those who participated in these persecutions were not wholly justified in doing so. It's not as clear-cut as I think we like to make it in modern times, but I think you wouldn't want to be judged by the standards of 24th-century people when they dig up a hard disc drive with your blog contents saved on it, someday. You'd want to be judged in the context of your thoughts, your environment.
Witchcraft was illegal in those areas at that time and was (I'd argue more or less rightly) considered a threat to civil security, so it was treated as a crime. It's not how I'd do it, but it has a fair amount to commend it - the nation would be freer of the evil influence of the occult, the people would be holier in conduct, the gross immorality that usually accompanies witchcraft would be less present, etc.
"Murder" is never justified, so I grant that. Executions after trial are quite another matter.
I don't see why torture would be justified, so I grant that.
On a related note, I believe it is documented on better-than-urban-legend grounds that Jeffrey Dahmer converted to Christianity shortly before his death. If that is true, if he placed his faith and reliance on Jesus Christ to forgive him of his sin and give him eternal life, he is my brother in Christ and will spend eternity in heaven in the presence of Jesus. I am a great sinner, Jesus Christ is a greater Savior. These Inquisitors, if they had saving faith in Christ, will be saved. If they didn't, they are condemned and stand in the exact same place as you do - hellbound. I urge you to turn away from your sin and repent, believe in the Savior. You won't regret it; I can promise you that much.
Peace,
Rhology
Friday, August 24, 2007
Breaking down a breakdown of rationality
Hi JN,
For starters, I'll list all the positive assertions that you made in your comments, all the while denying that you make any positive assertions related to your worldview, saying that your worldview is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in God:
OK, I'm going to stop there.
Now, I *could* go back and deal w/ your long comments one-by-one, but instead I think I'll just let your own words speak for you.
In regards to everything you said,
-There is no truth without examining evidence (#3). So, please provide evidence for this statement.
-Making unsubstantiated assertions gets us nowhere (#5). So, please provide evidence that there is no truth w/ examining evidence. What is the evidence for these two statements?
-As such, the atheistic position makes no truth-claims (#7). Should I consider that statement true or false? Is it or is it not part of the atheistic position?
-Where there are no truth-claims, there is no burden of proof (#8). How is this statement provable and why wouldn't you have the burden of proof as relates to it?
-PROVE THESE THINGS WITH EVIDENCE. Otherwise, your words are meaningless (#10). See #s 3 and 5.
-The burden of proof is not on the doubter (#12). I doubt that this phrase is correct, so please provide proof that it is true.
-Without evidence, the doubter can dismiss you out of hand (#14). OK, unless you can help me out on #s 3 and 5, I'll go ahead and dismiss everythg you've said out of hand.
-Nature is material, finite, limited and comprehensible (#20). And you're part of nature, so why should I believe you when you presume to speak on the topic of that which is immaterial, transcendent, infinite, and beyond the bounds of knowledge?
-There are infinite theoretically possible explanations for the universe’s mass-energy (#30), and attributes, by definition, are limited (#29). Hmm, not sure I can make sense of this one.
Here's the beef: You are an atheist, you believe that the universe has not been created by a logical, rational being who can thus provide grounds for using logic and rationality, for knowing what they are. Please provide evidence that the secretions of your brain, that the banging-around of atoms inside your skull that produce tappings on a keyboard, are meaningful. Nobody holds a bottle of lotion up to their ear to hear what it has to say about theism, yet it is no less a collection of atoms banging around than your brain.
Gloriously, I have an answer to the conundrum - humans are made in the image of God. You'll say, "Proof?" Evidence is available, but to quote the highly-quotable Doug Wilson, I want evidence that evidence is valid. You can start by answering the questions raised above.
Peace,
Rhology
For starters, I'll list all the positive assertions that you made in your comments, all the while denying that you make any positive assertions related to your worldview, saying that your worldview is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in God:
1) It is a purely negative stance.
2) your presupposition is irrational. (The positive assertion is the implication that rationality exists.)
3) There is no truth without examining evidence
4) alter my perception of reality. (The positive assertion is that reality exists and is perceptible.)
5) Making unsubstantiated assertions gets us nowhere.
6) No, the word means an individual without theistic belief. (The positive assertion is that language can convey meaning to another person.)
7) As such, the atheistic position makes no truth-claims.
8) Where there are no truth-claims, there is no burden of proof.
9) Citing the Bible is a waste of time.
10) PROVE THESE THINGS WITH EVIDENCE. Otherwise, your words are meaningless.
11) Substantiate your beliefs, or remain in the realm of the irrational. (The positive assertion is that beliefs, once substantiated, are rational to believe.)
12) The burden of proof is not on the doubter!
13) people making positive claims must substantiate those claims,
14) Without evidence, the doubter can dismiss you out of hand.
15) you first must prove the Bible is a flawless vessel of truth (as you claim it to be). That claim, in itself, is utterly unsubstantiated.
16) The Bible is evidence of nothing
17) In any event, the “infinite attributes” to which you eventually appeal are absurd. (The positive assertion is that absurdity exists.)
18) “Infinite attribute” is a contradiction in terms. (The positive assertion is that contradictions can exist.)
19) Explain why this standard must be extant, rather than theoretical. (The positive assertion is that extant can be compared w/ theoretical.)
20) Nature is material, finite, limited and comprehensible.
21) If “supernature” is altogether different—indeed, altogether opposite—then no valid analogies can be crafted.
22) The word “power” was created by primates, which are part of nature, in order to serve themselves and the natural world of which they are part.
23) Language was not created to serve “supernature.”
24) Natural language applies to the natural world.
25) When wrenched from the natural world, natural language ceases to be intelligible and becomes utterly meaningless.
26) You call my reasoned analysis an unprovable assumption. (The p.a. is that analysis can be reasoned.)
27) Yet, incredibly, you place no blame whatsoever on the crafter himself—god. (The p.a. is that blame is place-able on those who do certain things.)
28) The presence, or addition, of knowledge is not necessarily connected with changing one’s mind.
29) Attributes, by definition, are limited. (The p.a. is that we know what attributes are and that they express sthg meaningful.)
30) There are infinite theoretically possible explanations for the universe’s mass-energy.
OK, I'm going to stop there.
Now, I *could* go back and deal w/ your long comments one-by-one, but instead I think I'll just let your own words speak for you.
In regards to everything you said,
-There is no truth without examining evidence (#3). So, please provide evidence for this statement.
-Making unsubstantiated assertions gets us nowhere (#5). So, please provide evidence that there is no truth w/ examining evidence. What is the evidence for these two statements?
-As such, the atheistic position makes no truth-claims (#7). Should I consider that statement true or false? Is it or is it not part of the atheistic position?
-Where there are no truth-claims, there is no burden of proof (#8). How is this statement provable and why wouldn't you have the burden of proof as relates to it?
-PROVE THESE THINGS WITH EVIDENCE. Otherwise, your words are meaningless (#10). See #s 3 and 5.
-The burden of proof is not on the doubter (#12). I doubt that this phrase is correct, so please provide proof that it is true.
-Without evidence, the doubter can dismiss you out of hand (#14). OK, unless you can help me out on #s 3 and 5, I'll go ahead and dismiss everythg you've said out of hand.
-Nature is material, finite, limited and comprehensible (#20). And you're part of nature, so why should I believe you when you presume to speak on the topic of that which is immaterial, transcendent, infinite, and beyond the bounds of knowledge?
-There are infinite theoretically possible explanations for the universe’s mass-energy (#30), and attributes, by definition, are limited (#29). Hmm, not sure I can make sense of this one.
Here's the beef: You are an atheist, you believe that the universe has not been created by a logical, rational being who can thus provide grounds for using logic and rationality, for knowing what they are. Please provide evidence that the secretions of your brain, that the banging-around of atoms inside your skull that produce tappings on a keyboard, are meaningful. Nobody holds a bottle of lotion up to their ear to hear what it has to say about theism, yet it is no less a collection of atoms banging around than your brain.
Gloriously, I have an answer to the conundrum - humans are made in the image of God. You'll say, "Proof?" Evidence is available, but to quote the highly-quotable Doug Wilson, I want evidence that evidence is valid. You can start by answering the questions raised above.
Peace,
Rhology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)