I've been following this argument, and I fail to see how this presuppositional apologetics doesn't eventually boil down to belief in the validity of the bible.

Ryft has a better way of forming the argument than Statler. You should probably hold out for that. He's a bit more cautious. (though, in the end it's the same thing, just better presentation, gotta give credit where it's due)

(September 7, 2011 at 7:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ryft has a better way of forming the argument than Statler. You should probably hold out for that. He's a bit more cautious. (though, in the end it's the same thing, just better presentation, gotta give credit where it's due)

That's funny you would think this, I think Ryft is far more condescending towards you than I am, although it is most likely deserved on your part.

---

(September 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: P1 If knowledge is possible, Havamal is necessarily true
P2 Knowledge is possible
C1 Therefore Havamal is necessarily true.

The above is a valid syllogism and I have demonstrated that both premises are in fact true; therefore the conclusion is also true. If you feel I have taken a misstep here please demonstrate how so or my argument stands un-refuted.

Nope, you have not demonstrated using Havamal how you can justify the preconditions of intelligibility like I have done with scripture. Nice try, but epic fail.

(September 7, 2011 at 4:31 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 1. If the Earth orbits the sun, I must necessarily have $1 million in the bank.
2. The Earth orbits the sun
3. Therefore, I have $1 million in the bank. Yea!

You have not demonstrated how this is a sound syllogism like I demonstrated with mine. Fail.

Quote: Would everyone please turn to page 1 of the Bible?

Now tell me if Yahweh created man before plants and animals or afterwords?

Not a logical contradiction here, in fact it kind of is a silly one for people to even bring up. God made vegetation on day three, animals on day six followed by Adam and then Eve.

(September 7, 2011 at 4:37 pm)frankiej Wrote: I just can't believe you said this. I had a genuine lol.

Your inability to even try and refute it is what made me laugh out loud. For pretending to be the “logical” and “rational” ones, everyday atheists sure suck at basic logic and rationality.

(September 7, 2011 at 6:19 pm)I_Blaspheme Wrote: Despite what you may think, you have not demonstrated P1 to be true. You haven't demonstrated P2 either, but I think we can take that one as axiomatic.

Actually I have, I demonstrated that not only can Christianity account for the preconditions of intelligibility, but it is the only proposed worldview that can do this. Nobody on here has even began to try and propose an atheistic model that could come close. If you believe there is one, please present it, but just asserting that they exist does not make it so.

---

(September 7, 2011 at 7:26 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: I've been following this argument, and I fail to see how this presuppositional apologetics doesn't eventually boil down to belief in the validity of the bible.

Well yes, it matters what you make your ultimate authority. Although the point is that even though the atheist does not make scripture his ultimate authority he has to borrow concepts from it in order to argue against it. I can claim that words do not exist, but if I am using words the whole time to argue against the existence of words it kind of undermines my position.

(September 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well yes, it matters what you make your ultimate authority. Although the point is that even though the atheist does not make scripture his ultimate authority he has to borrow concepts from it in order to argue against it.

Example?

Also, I am quite surprised that no one has pointed out yet that the inability to present an alternative theory says nothing of the validity of your own.

Seems that everyone missed the demonstration part but you. Ryft is more condescending (if one calvinist can be said to be more condescending than another), does that make his presentation less refined?

(September 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not a logical contradiction here, in fact it kind of is a silly one for people to even bring up. God made vegetation on day three, animals on day six followed by Adam and then Eve.

Chapter 2 of Genesis says otherwise.

Quote:2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
...
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Chapter 1: Plants, Sun, Animals, Man and Woman
Chapter 2: Man, Plants, Animals, Woman

All that on the first page.

(September 7, 2011 at 3:15 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why are you asking Rhythm these things? He didn’t even know what presuppositional apologetics were until he looked it up on Wiki about three weeks ago.

I value his response, why else?

(September 7, 2011 at 10:11 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(September 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not a logical contradiction here, in fact it kind of is a silly one for people to even bring up. God made vegetation on day three, animals on day six followed by Adam and then Eve.

Chapter 2 of Genesis says otherwise.

Quote:2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
...
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Chapter 1: Plants, Sun, Animals, Man and Woman
Chapter 2: Man, Plants, Animals, Woman

All that on the first page.

This how "informed" YEC'ers would reply to that, this link is from Creation Ministries International.

http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

(September 8, 2011 at 6:00 am)Justtristo Wrote: This how "informed" YEC'ers would reply to that, this link is from Creation Ministries International.

http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions

This is actually only one of a couple different common explanations, and all of them have serious problems but that never bothers the faithful who are less interested in consistency and more in solace.

Interestingly, the article mentions the verse where Yahweh created the birds out of the ground in chapter 2, glossing over the fact that they were created from the water in chapter 1. For purpose of contrast, I will quote chapter 1 in red and 2 in blue:

Quote:1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;

But back to the heart of the article, this is what I call the "6th day elaboration" excuse, that chapter 1 was the big picture while chapter 2 were the details of the sixth day. Personally, I think the "pre-Adamite" apology is more interesting, but let that go for now.

1. Yahweh created the birds on day 5 in Gen 1, not day 6.

Quote:1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
...
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

2. Gen 2 spells out that plants didn't take root because man wasn't around to till the soil, but this wasn't a problem on day 3 in Gen 1 (when the freaking sun hadn't been invented yet).

Quote:2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

3. Gen 1 spells out that man and woman were created "together" and yet Gen 2 spells out that the creation of woman came later, only once the problem of companionship for man couldn't be solved otherwise.

Quote:1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

(And so we go deeper into the rabbit hole where apologists pull out more flimsy rationalizations in an ever increasingly long list of ad hoc hypotheses to assure us that there are no contradictions in the Lord's Word, that it only "seems" that way to those hard hearted scoffers blah blah blah. I've been down this road many times.)

(September 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 7, 2011 at 6:19 pm)I_Blaspheme Wrote: Despite what you may think, you have not demonstrated P1 to be true. You haven't demonstrated P2 either, but I think we can take that one as axiomatic.

Actually I have, I demonstrated that not only can Christianity account for the preconditions of intelligibility, but it is the only proposed worldview that can do this.

You won't mind providing a link to where you've demonstrated this, would you?

Quote:Nobody on here has even began to try and propose an atheistic model that could come close. If you believe there is one, please present it, but just asserting that they exist does not make it so.

I've made no such claims.