The best way, imo, to deal with these kind, is to give them what they want, give them all their assumptions, and see where it leads.

Let's assume the laws of logic depend on God for validity. Can we prove that God exists? We can't assume God exists, or else the argument would be circular. And since we must be neutral in our assumptions, and since the validity of logic depends on assuming God, we must assume, therefore, that logic is unreliable. Without logic, the presuppositionalist cannot demonstrate God, or really anything.

Therefore, since the existence of God cannot be demonstrated, because all human reasonings are unreliable, we have no reason to believe in God, the bible or anything. We can believe on faith, but since human reasoning is unreliable, it's impossible to tell which God or which reality to have faith in.

Under pressupositionalism, "All is Maya." All is illusion. There is no truth. Not even for the presuppositionalist.

(June 15, 2012 at 11:28 am)elunico13 Wrote: You are confusing the mind with the universe.

No I'm not.

(June 15, 2012 at 11:28 am)elunico13 Wrote: We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us.

Yes, they are.

(June 15, 2012 at 11:28 am)elunico13 Wrote: The laws of logic are not discovered in the same way. For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time, because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist.
If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.

Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.

We discover the laws of logic by thinking about all the observations we have made - the same way we discover laws of physics. You gave a good example of how we do it. We observe that nothing we have ever observed is itself and not itself at the same time. Given that it fits everything that is known irrespective of physical category, we consider it a law of logic.

(June 15, 2012 at 11:28 am)elunico13 Wrote: If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance (evolution), why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe?

No one expects that that capacity would come about. But it has, so the question of expectation is moot.

(June 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: It's already been explained to you ad neuseum that science (evolution) isn't a faith system (and you've been asked to provide your reasons for thinking otherwise, which you've never done).

It has also been explained to you ad neuseum that "laws of logic" aren't things or forces to be explained. They are observations of how things work. No deity is necessary.

---

Btw, I just so happened to have clicked on an older episode of "The Atheist Experience", picked almost at random, to listen to while working on something else. Right away, the host Tracy began talking about the Argument from Ignorance and why it isn't valid reasoning. It's so fitting to this discussion and to presuppositional apologetics, I'm going to link here:

Evolution describes (does not prescribe) the past using present findings. If you have ever considered the big bang theory to be even a remote possibilty you've put a BLIND faith into it. You weren't there to OBSERVE it.

About your video.
What would you consider a convincing peice of evidence for the biblical God?
Let's see if your answer would be inconsistant with how you've determined other things to be true.

Think this one through carefully, because any inconsistant answer would prove your biased position and psychological reason to hold to an atheistic view.

BTW: I wonder why no one can account for logic in their own worldview except for the Christian theist?

---

(June 15, 2012 at 5:25 pm)apophenia Wrote:


The best way, imo, to deal with these kind, is to give them what they want, give them all their assumptions, and see where it leads.

Let's assume the laws of logic depend on God for validity. Can we prove that God exists? We can't assume God exists, or else the argument would be circular. And since we must be neutral in our assumptions, and since the validity of logic depends on assuming God, we must assume, therefore, that logic is unreliable. Without logic, the presuppositionalist cannot demonstrate God, or really anything.

Therefore, since the existence of God cannot be demonstrated, because all human reasonings are unreliable, we have no reason to believe in God, the bible or anything. We can believe on faith, but since human reasoning is unreliable, it's impossible to tell which God or which reality to have faith in.

Under pressupositionalism, "All is Maya." All is illusion. There is no truth. Not even for the presuppositionalist.

Right on you have to assume logic before you can use it.
The christian can account for the laws of logic while other worldviews can't. You should do more research on circular arguments.

(June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am)elunico13 Wrote: The christian can account for the laws of logic while other worldviews can't. You should do more research on circular arguments.

Yep, the laws of logic come from God, wich explains.... nothing!

(June 18, 2012 at 10:09 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am)elunico13 Wrote: The christian can account for the laws of logic while other worldviews can't. You should do more research on circular arguments.

Yep, the laws of logic come from God, wich explains.... nothing!

What type of evidence would satisfy you for the existence of the biblical God?

Try to answer the question seriously please.

(June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am)elunico13 Wrote: Evolution describes (does not prescribe) the past using present findings.

Evolution is the study of how life changes over time. It includes not just fossil findings but also observations of speciation and adaptation in modern times. It also has predictive applications for the future as well, such as vaccines for the next anticipated strain of flu.

Quote:If you have ever considered the big bang theory to be even a remote possibilty you've put a BLIND faith into it. You weren't there to OBSERVE it.

So confidence in science is equivalent to faith in religion? Unlike with religious assertions, science contains a body of knowledge and evidence that anyone can review. If I wished to pursue a doctorate in cosmology or astronomy, I could provide you with a dissertation of the evidence. However, if I were to pursue a doctorate in theology, I would be no better off in providing any evidence for the assertions of the Bible.

The scientific method is a process that involves rigorous peer review. It ferrets out and exposes faulty explanations and bogus claims. It demands tests that anyone can examine or repeat. To suggest that the scientific community all over the world has accepted and defended a faulty theory for 100 years is to suggest a grand conspiracy theory, one that would dwarf those proposed by UFO buffs and 9/11 Truthers. Can you provide any reason to think such a junta of atheists has managed to pull off and maintain such a hoax for so long? Can you even suggest a clear motive?

That "thud" you just heard was the burden of proof landing in your backyard. Good luck.

Quote:About your video.
What would you consider a convincing peice of evidence for the biblical God?
Let's see if your answer would be inconsistant with how you've determined other things to be true.

It's not mine but I did find it interesting.

A "convincing piece of evidence", by which I mean something that would make me consider that Yahweh is real, might include magical artifacts like Paul's handkerchief. Use this piece of cloth to heal people under the scrutiny of medical peer review with repeatable blind tests that help to rule out the placebo effect.

Alternatively, you could perform healing rituals that Jesus promised those of faith could do (Mark 16). Again, this would need to be performed as a series repeatable blind tests with a control group to rule out the placebo effect, performed under the scrutiny of medical peer review.

I find it necessary to remark that Christianity offers no evidence of any kind, aside from philoso-babble.

Quote:Think this one through carefully, because any inconsistant answer would prove your biased position and psychological reason to hold to an atheistic view.

Do keep in mind as you review my response that not only do you have the burden of proof but the proof required for any claim is proportional to the extraordinary nature of the claim. Mundane claims require minimal evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Quote:BTW: I wonder why no one can account for logic in their own worldview except for the Christian theist?

I again repeat (ad neuseum) that logic doesn't need to be accounted for. But I do wonder how "GodWillsIt" is a superior answer and why you feel the gods of other religions wouldn't substitute for yours quite nicely.

(June 18, 2012 at 11:14 am)elunico13 Wrote: What type of evidence would satisfy you for the existence of the biblical God?

Try to answer the question seriously please.

How about your god distinguishng from real, natural events. I'm sure he could just project his image to everyone on the planet, to that we could hear his words, so now its where you start your apologist crap. Why do we always find gods in ignorance?

(June 18, 2012 at 11:14 am)elunico13 Wrote: What type of evidence would satisfy you for the existence of the biblical God?

Try to answer the question seriously please.

I realise this wasn't addressed to me but if you'll indulge:

If it's the biblical god we're considering, how about some of the stuff from the mythology? I don't mean water into wine kind of parlour tricks, anyone with a half decent home brew kit can do that. I'm talking about making completely new animals from dirt (then ideally making them talk); taking a bone from my body and turning it into a woman; parting an ocean - a small one will do - so as to leave a causeway between the two walls of water wide enough for a small army to walk on. Heck, what about creating a brand new universe?

It's interesting how the scale of the magic dwindles as the narrative approaches recorded history. First those big budget Cecil B De Mille-type miracles - famines, floods, massacres of millions; then virgin births, expulsion of demons and walking on water. Nowadays all we get is spontaneous remission of illness, lost car keys turning up and burnt toast. I wonder why..?

(June 18, 2012 at 11:51 am)Stimbo Wrote: If it's the biblical god we're considering, how about some of the stuff from the mythology?

Just to clarify for Elucino, because I know Christians are usually unfamiliar with the Bible, that my two examples of what kind of evidence you could provide come from scripture.

Paul's Magic Handkerchiefs and Aprons:

Quote:Acts 19:11-12 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

And Jesus promise of what those of the faith could do:

Quote:Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Please don't handle serpents and drink poisons. Stick to safer applications like healing the sick.

There you go, el; two whole Testaments to choose from.