Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Anomalocaris]

Statler has a view of evolution that all creatures are evolving steadily upwards past reliable landmarks until they eventually become more like western scholars.

His view of evolution is whatever appears at the moment to him, and to those as dumb or dumber than him, to make his particular flavor of creationism look slightly less rediculous in comparison.

[The Grand Nudger]

Creationism only comes in one flavor. It's always shit, shit with syrup, shit with nuts, shit with jimmies (). Still shit.

[Statler Waldorf]

His view of evolution is whatever appears at the moment to him, and to those as dumb or dumber than him, to make his particular flavor of creationism look slightly less rediculous in comparison.

I hope you were trying to be funny by misspelling ridiculous right after inferring I was the dumb one.

---

Sadly I must go and watch some football (something I am sure I do because evolution favored it), so until next time fellas, take care.

[The Grand Nudger]

Catch you later Stat. I've got my necro card back at the top of the deck.

[DeistPaladin]

It’s not so much the word, it is what it represents. It represents a moral standard, when you tell people they should or ought to behave in a certain way you are making an appeal to morality. Moral standards have to come from a higher authority in order to hold any merit.

This is an assumption, as I'm comfortable with the idea of morals being reasoned independent of any celestial authority. To say, to use your example, that "rape is wrong", it doesn't help us understand why if we simply say "GodWillsIt". Much like "GodDidIt" is unsatisfying to our curiosity of science questions.

If you do say "This is wrong because GodSaysSo", I'd like to know how God came to that determination. If God came up with rules and thereby determined morality as a celestial lawgiver, this is not objective morality by definition. If a being just invents rules, however wise or powerful this being may be, it is by definition a subjective moral code, subject to the whims and will of this being. On the other hand, if you say that God determines moral codes through superior judgment, wisdom, knowledge, etc. as a celestial adjudicator, then morality exists outside of and independent of God. These moral codes would continue to stand if God were to cease to exist or turned out never to have existed in the first place.

Does GodWillIt because it is good or do we call it "good" because GodWillsIt?

The popular Christian answer is to find some middle ground by babbling that, as Ryft said, "morality is grounded in the very nature of God". Beyond the fact that this premise is never explained (WTF does that even mean?) it's a classic case of begging the question.

The only God who has revealed to us what these standards are would be the God of the Bible.

The above statement contradicts what you state later. Stay tuned...

If morals really were just derived by men as you say they were, then the God of the Bible should have no problem violating them and would be in no way obligated to adhere to them; so why complain about Him? So it’s just another example of how atheists borrow from Christian concepts to argue against Christianity.

Bold emphasis mine because that's what I want to ask you about. Do you feel that might makes right? Is "morality" just a question of superior strength? If there is a universal standard of morality, as you suggest, why would it not apply to all beings regardless of how powerful they are?

The reason atheists judge the morality of the Christian god is because these are the same standards by which we would judge an earthly ruler or a mortal parent. For example, no parent would be allowed to set their child on fire if the child refused to love the parent. How can we worship a god who demands love on pain of damnation?

If you would suggest that God should be held to a different moral standard than mortals, you have violated your belief in a universal moral code and reduced morality to a question of might.

So if a society all agrees that rape is now morally acceptable and begins to rape the women of other societies that is morally acceptable?

Indeed, this was true of ancient Hebrew society if the OT is any indication. Some Muslims will unabashedly call for the rape and sex slavery of non Muslims. Such societies unfortunately exist and I'm curious where you find your scriptural justification to say that Yahweh would admonish them to change.

But to your question, what makes them wrong is that very sense of empathy and the social contract I mention earlier. I would not want to be raped. I trust you would not either. So how can we not understand the pain of one who is? How can we morally allow one person to endure what we would not want for ourselves?

Societies end up with similar moral codes because they all have an innate knowledge that they are created by a God who commands them to adhere to certain moral standards (Romans 1).

First, you just contradicted your assertion that only the god of the Bible has revealed his moral code to humanity. If we intuitively understand the morality that God has ordained, why is Nature's God out of the question? If we say that our innate sense of right and wrong comes from God, it doesn't have to be a god of any scripture, Christian or otherwise. Also, if my moral compass comes from God, it can't be the god of the Bible, since that very instinct is so sickened by the evil nature of the god you worship.

If you cannot or do not justify it then you are violating the principle of sufficient reason and the debate is over. You also would have no right to tell anyone else they should behave logically if you yourself cannot justify its use, right?

Wrong. I believe in logic because it's shown to work. I want society to be more reasonable and less superstitious because it will create a better society, for me and everyone else. Science works. Religion doesn't. QED.

Nature’s god has not revealed itself to man, so it would be impossible to know anything about morality or have any justification for believing in the uniformity of nature.

You just contradicted your assertion that our internal moral compass comes from God.

How would you obtain “evidence to the contrary” without using your senses? Circularity?

See the movie, "A Beautiful Mind".

What if the only revealed word is the Natural Universe?

Then there would be no basis for knowledge or inquiry.

Science.

---

Reviewing my post, I'm not sure if I was clear as to why I justify the use of science and reason. You can't logically justify the use of logic with logic as that would be circular. That's why it's a matter of personal preference. I like living in a rational society. Rational societies also offer more freedom and a higher standard of living. This is a matter of preference. You can go live in Saudi Arabia if you desire to use faith and superstition to govern your life.

[Faith No More]

Which presupposes that scripture is true, which you are doing because you claim the Christian god is necessary. You cannot claim scripture is true because the Christian god is necessary, and then claim the Christian god is necessary because the scripture is true.

I don't believe I have done that though. I presuppose scripture is true because if it were not true then knowledge itself would be impossible because the revealed truths in scripture are the very foundation for inquiry.

But you have done that by claiming that scripture is the foundation for inquiry which makes Yaweh necessary.

Also, what is your basis for claiming that knowledge is impossible without the Christian god? You state that as if all possible explanations for the origin of knowledge have been thoroughly exhausted leaving only Yaweh. You seem to be letting your beliefs dictate your interpretation of the evidence, instead of objectively interpreting the evidence and letting that shape your beliefs.

[Captain Scarlet]

Absolutely DP, amongst all the arguments for a god, the moral ones really is laughably bad. Caught on the horns of the euthyphro dilemma the case is put forward that morality itself is grounded in gods nature, and no-one knows what that means nor can explain it. But it only moves the problem back one stage:

Did god decide to ground what was good and bad in his nature and thus morality is arbitrary, or is god grounding in his nature things which are already good and bad and thus god is not needed? Of course god grounding morality in his nature may come from him having already ground it in his grounding etc etc etc. Until someone can explain this facet of god instead of merely asserting it, it is utterly meaningless.

[DeistPaladin]

Reflecting further on this subject of defending reason, I've explained to you that the use of science and reason are preferences. We see the results of civilizations where reason and science are ascendant, compare them with ones, past and present, where superstition and religion are ascendant, and we prefer the results that come from science and reason. Stat Wal seems to agree (part in bold, my emphasis):

I know it works, but saying it works didn’t answer the question. You didn’t give a justification for why it works in the first place.

I'm lost on the point of why I need to offer any further justification than "I'm going with what's proven to work" but I'm going to let that argument rest until someone can explain why this reason is insufficient.

What I'm going to turn to now is the hypocrisy of anyone who's such a sophist as to log onto the internet (a product of science and rational thinking) and log onto a forum to enter a rational discussion to demand that someone rationally justify the use of reason. We agree that it works so you are being a sophist for questioning why it should be used.

You also would have no right to tell anyone else they should behave logically if you yourself cannot justify its use, right?

I don't know that I have. The word "should" is the word you used, not me. If you wish to live in a society that forsakes science, technology and rational thought, I'm sure the Amish community could use another member. I'm certainly not going to advocate that we invade Amish compounds and force them into the modern age. If their life makes them happy and they harm no one else, I'll leave them to it. As one famous deist once said, "It neither breaks my leg not picks my pocket."

But if you log onto the internet to even question the use of rational thought and scientific inquiry, then you are the one who "borrows in order to attack", not me. You apparently use the gifts of science when they suit you but cherry pick the findings so you can reject evolution or rational inquiry into the claims of religion.

Your only escape clause from this bit of sophistry your assertion that the Christian god "commands you to be logical" and you are simply following orders. Yet where in chapter and verse can such commands be found and how can they square with the use of faith, which by definition is belief without reason and against all reason?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

This is an assumption, as I'm comfortable with the idea of morals being reasoned independent of any celestial authority. To say, to use your example, that "rape is wrong", it doesn't help us understand why if we simply say "GodWillsIt". Much like "GodDidIt" is unsatisfying to our curiosity of science questions.

If you do say "This is wrong because GodSaysSo", I'd like to know how God came to that determination. If God came up with rules and thereby determined morality as a celestial lawgiver, this is not objective morality by definition. If a being just invents rules, however wise or powerful this being may be, it is by definition a subjective moral code, subject to the whims and will of this being. On the other hand, if you say that God determines moral codes through superior judgment, wisdom, knowledge, etc. as a celestial adjudicator, then morality exists outside of and independent of God. These moral codes would continue to stand if God were to cease to exist or turned out never to have existed in the first place.

---

Euthyphro’s dilemma- well played kind sir. I am afraid it creates a false dilemma for the Christian though. God’s nature is wholly good, so God only appeals to His own nature and character as to what is righteous. His revelation flows from this character. So morality would not exist if God ceased to exist or never existed because His nature would also cease to exist, and yet it is not arbitrary because God’s nature never ceases to be good and God always appeals to His nature and character. The dilemma may apply to purely platonic gods, but it just simply does not apply to the Triune God of the Bible.

Bold emphasis mine because that's what I want to ask you about. Do you feel that might makes right? Is "morality" just a question of superior strength? If there is a universal standard of morality, as you suggest, why would it not apply to all beings regardless of how powerful they are?

Well it depends on whether we are talking about an absolute morality that is commanded by God which flows from His wholly good nature or if we are talking about covenantal morality which is set up by God as an agreement between man and Himself. Certain laws are designed specifically for the creature, such as not passing judgment upon one another; does God have to also abide by this rule? Absolutely not. So it is inappropriate for people to accuse God of breaking laws that were designed for His creatures not for Him. It would be like a child chastising his parents for staying up past his bedtime. It just makes no sense.

The reason atheists judge the morality of the Christian god is because these are the same standards by which we would judge an earthly ruler or a mortal parent. For example, no parent would be allowed to set their child on fire if the child refused to love the parent. How can we worship a god who demands love on pain of damnation?

You are falsely assuming that God sets any of His children on fire for not loving Him. He justly punishes his creatures (not children) for rebelling against Him, and adopts His chosen creatures as His children and gives them infinitely better treatment than they deserve (saving grace). Sounds like both a loving and just God to me. Part of the problem is this liberal and relatively new view that we are all God’s children. The Bible is very clear that we are all God’s creatures (Romans 9) but only His chosen people are adopted as His children (Ephesians).

If you would suggest that God should be held to a different moral standard than mortals, you have violated your belief in a universal moral code and reduced morality to a question of might.

As I already pointed out, depends on which standard we are talking about.

So if a society all agrees that rape is now morally acceptable and begins to rape the women of other societies that is morally acceptable?

Indeed, this was true of ancient Hebrew society if the OT is any indication. Some Muslims will unabashedly call for the rape and sex slavery of non Muslims. Such societies unfortunately exist and I'm curious where you find your scriptural justification to say that Yahweh would admonish them to change.

Whoa, wait a minute, so it would be morally acceptable? So then why do many atheists on here whine about such actions? I saw Hitchens give an entire opening statement about how the Bible is “evil”, when you yourself admit here that if there actually was rape condoned in scripture (never seen any proof of this) it still would not be morally wrong. Rape was outlawed in Hebrew societies just like it is in the New Convenant.

But to your question, what makes them wrong is that very sense of empathy and the social contract I mention earlier. I would not want to be raped. I trust you would not either. So how can we not understand the pain of one who is? How can we morally allow one person to endure what we would not want for ourselves?

Where do you get this notion of don’t do unto others as you would not have done to you? Seems completely arbritery to me. So if the
Marques De Sade
wanted to be sexually assaulted it was completely acceptable for him to sexually assault others? I can see this view on morality causing all sorts of problems.
Judge: “Sir would you want someone to shoot you?”
Defendant: “No sir, but this man was breaking into my house!”
Judge: “I am sorry son; if you didn’t want to be shot you should not have shot the intruder in your house.”

Besides, if we are just animals, I don’t how you can even make any appeals to morality. Animals kill and rape one another even though I doubt they themselves would want to have it done to them.

First, you just contradicted your assertion that only the god of the Bible has revealed his moral code to humanity. If we intuitively understand the morality that God has ordained, why is Nature's God out of the question? If we say that our innate sense of right and wrong comes from God, it doesn't have to be a god of any scripture, Christian or otherwise. Also, if my moral compass comes from God, it can't be the god of the Bible, since that very instinct is so sickened by the evil nature of the god you worship.

I hate it when you all misuse the word contradict. Contradicting myself would be saying that only the God of the Bible has revealed Himself through scripture and not only the God of the Bible has revealed Himself through scripture. Are you trying to use a concept derived from scripture (that humans are born with a knowledge of God and morality) to argue for a god other than the God of scripture? That seems pretty backwards. There you go calling the God of the Bible evil again, what universal standard of morality are you using to judge God by? The only one I have heard you use so far is some evolutionary feelings of empathy that humans have for one another, how could this possibly apply to God? So you are using a Biblical concept, transcendental morality, to argue against the God of the Bible.

Wrong. I believe in logic because it's shown to work. I want society to be more reasonable and less superstitious because it will create a better society, for me and everyone else. Science works. Religion doesn't. QED.

Well your opinions aside, how is logic shown to work? You are also making a circular logic here, trying to using a logical statement (it works, therefore we should continue to use it) to justify logic. So using your approach I don’t have to justify believing that scripture is the word of God as long as it works? That seems easy enough.

If superstitions work then are we justified in using them?

Science would be impossible in a world not created by God because there would be no justification for the principle of induction. So it’s kind of ironic you would glorify science and then bash the very system that makes it possible.

You just contradicted your assertion that our internal moral compass comes from God.

No I didn’t, it does, just not from Nature’s God (whatever that is even supposed to mean).

See the movie, "A Beautiful Mind".

I have, still does not answer my question. He still had to use his senses to tell himself his senses were not reliable. Circularity?

Science.

---

Science would not be possible in a world that the God of scripture did not reside over.

Reviewing my post, I'm not sure if I was clear as to why I justify the use of science and reason. You can't logically justify the use of logic with logic as that would be circular. That's why it's a matter of personal preference. I like living in a rational society. Rational societies also offer more freedom and a higher standard of living. This is a matter of preference. You can go live in Saudi Arabia if you desire to use faith and superstition to govern your life.

This is again just a red herring; I never said anything about not wanting to live in a rational society now did I? I just have a worldview that can give justification for believing in logic and rationality. You do not. I enjoy the discussion though, it is interesting.

But you have done that by claiming that scripture is the foundation for inquiry which makes Yaweh necessary.

Also, what is your basis for claiming that knowledge is impossible without the Christian god? You state that as if all possible explanations for the origin of knowledge have been thoroughly exhausted leaving only Yaweh. You seem to be letting your beliefs dictate your interpretation of the evidence, instead of objectively interpreting the evidence and letting that shape your beliefs.

Hey FNM, did you get your username from the band Faith No More?
This is a critique of worldviews; the Christian worldview can completely justify the preconditions for intelligibility using scripture. It is the only worldview ever critiqued that can do this. Since knowledge is possible, and it has been demonstrated it would not be possible when any other worldview is consistently used the Biblical worldview is proven true through the impossibility of the contrary. When you say that there may be a worldview that can provide these answers and we just have not found it yet you are fallaciously appealing to ignorance. The atheist needs to propose a worldview that is first of all not self refuting (i.e. empiricism) and that can justify the preconditions of intelligibility or just concede defeat. That is the biggest strength of presuppositionalism; it goes after the atheist’s worldview and proves just how weak it is.

Let’s take just one of the preconditions for example. Uniformity in Nature, namely the laws of nature in the future will resemble those of the past. This provides a foundation for the principle of induction which makes science possible. Can you justify this assumption given an atheistic worldview though?

---

Reflecting further on this subject of defending reason, I've explained to you that the use of science and reason are preferences. We see the results of civilizations where reason and science are ascendant, compare them with ones, past and present, where superstition and religion are ascendant, and we prefer the results that come from science and reason. Stat Wal seems to agree (part in bold, my emphasis):

I know it works, but saying it works didn’t answer the question. You didn’t give a justification for why it works in the first place.

I'm lost on the point of why I need to offer any further justification than "I'm going with what's proven to work" but I'm going to let that argument rest until someone can explain why this reason is insufficient.

What I'm going to turn to now is the hypocrisy of anyone who's such a sophist as to log onto the internet (a product of science and rational thinking) and log onto a forum to enter a rational discussion to demand that someone rationally justify the use of reason. We agree that it works so you are being a sophist for questioning why it should be used.

You also would have no right to tell anyone else they should behave logically if you yourself cannot justify its use, right?

I don't know that I have. The word "should" is the word you used, not me. If you wish to live in a society that forsakes science, technology and rational thought, I'm sure the Amish community could use another member. I'm certainly not going to advocate that we invade Amish compounds and force them into the modern age. If their life makes them happy and they harm no one else, I'll leave them to it. As one famous deist once said, "It neither breaks my leg not picks my pocket."

But if you log onto the internet to even question the use of rational thought and scientific inquiry, then you are the one who "borrows in order to attack", not me. You apparently use the gifts of science when they suit you but cherry pick the findings so you can reject evolution or rational inquiry into the claims of religion.

Your only escape clause from this bit of sophistry your assertion that the Christian god "commands you to be logical" and you are simply following orders. Yet where in chapter and verse can such commands be found and how can they square with the use of faith, which by definition is belief without reason and against all reason?

---

I am sorry, but this whole post is one big red herring, I never said we should not use science and should not be rational, I simply said that you cannot give sufficient reason for them given your worldview. This is a claim you have proven to be correct thus far. You equating rational thought with nothing more than personal preference is actually quite disturbing, but I have a Biblical obligation to be rational so maybe that Is why it rubs me the wrong way.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? You simply reorganized the question, you're bankrupt. You have no logic, no reason, no evidence, it is faith alone. Nothing wrong with admitting to faith alone Stat. Believe it's actually thought of as a virtue in your circles. As far as rape, what exactly do you think is meant by "keeping the girls who had never known a man for yourselves." It's official, I don't believe you've actually read the bible. I haven't heard anything from you that didn't fall straight from a discovery institute screed. Word for word. I think you just read their hilarious bullshit and said "Yup, sounds good enough for me" and now you're regurgitating here like it hasn't been knocked down everywhere else it's cropped up.