Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[Statler Waldorf]

So the presupposition that god does not exist is just as valid, yes? I'm also wondering why you feel that the status of scriptures inerrancy is not subject to being proven or disproven? Also, if you cannot prove your assumptions, you own words here, does that make the argument sound? Tired of the old axe about presupposing logic. This is complete bullshit. If we found an instance where logic would lead us to the exact opposite position of observable reality we would call bullshit wouldn't we. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

This is now getting interesting my friend.

I will assume there that when you said valid you weren't using is like we were using it above right? Sure you could presuppose that God does not exist, but then I would expect you to construct a worldview that is consistent with this presupposition, and no atheist I have talked to really does. It would be like presupposing that your memory is completely unreliable but then living your life like it was reliable. That is why presupposing God does not exist is not nearly as strong of a presupposition as He does exist.

Well in order to test scripture’s inerrancy claim you would need an inerrant standard to falsify it with. Since one does not exist, you really can’t prove or disprove scripture’s claim. Think of it this way, I have a class of 30 students, one student claims to never lie, but I know that all the other students could lie. I have no way of proving the one student is lying about never lying because if he really was inerrant, he would be the only inerrant standard in the class room. So people who say they can prove that scripture is inerrant are just as wrong as people who say they can prove it is not inerrant. Does that make sense at all?

The argument could still be sound even if I can’t prove it or not. This is why I don’t use that argument. I believe it is sound, you believe it is not sound.

I am sorry, I cannot disagree more about your point about logic. You would still have to make a logical argument as to why you are choosing your observation over logic. Knowledge is impossible without first assuming the laws of logic are a reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't have a worldview consistent with this presupposition? I assume you're using a capital G here, yeah?

Actually no, it doesn't make any sense Stat. When a claim to truth is made and the truth is observable by anyone who cares to look, it's pretty easy to point the finger and call someone for the liar they are. It's called fact checking. It's simple as hell to do.

That's about the weakest thing you've ever said, as if a logical argument comes down to beliefs. The argument is not sound. What you believe about the argument is irrelevant (same would apply to my "beliefs"..lulz).

To recap whats went down thusfar:

You would rather not talk about how hilariously and unfortunately incorrect you were about syllogisms, math, logic, and numbers.
Some arguments are valid but not sound, such as the argument from biblical inerrancy, or the drake equation.
Some presuppositions are not subject to the same scrutiny of other presuppositions.

For a "classical logic buff" you've really managed to butcher the whole thing.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

We don't have a worldview consistent with this presupposition? I assume you're using a capital G here, yeah?

Actually no, it doesn't make any sense Stat. When a claim to truth is made and the truth is observable by anyone who cares to look, it's pretty easy to point the finger and call someone for the liar they are. It's called fact checking. It's simple as hell to do.

That's about the weakest thing you've ever said, as if a logical argument comes down to beliefs. The argument is not sound. What you believe about the argument is irrelevant (same would apply to my "beliefs"..lulz).

To recap whats went down thusfar:

You would rather not talk about how hilariously and unfortunately incorrect you were about syllogisms, math, logic, and numbers.
Some arguments are valid but not sound, such as the argument from biblical inerrancy, or the drake equation.
Some presuppositions are not subject to the same scrutiny of other presuppositions.

For a "classical logic buff" you've really managed to butcher the whole thing.

---

- You are right; the way you behave is completely inconsistent with your atheism.
- It’s not a claim to truth; it’s a claim to inerrancy, the ultimate standard to judge truth. You have a different inerrant standard to judge it by? Didn’t think so.
- I didn’t say all logical arguments come down to beliefs, that one does though. You can’t prove it is not sound so don’t even waste your time.
- A better recap would be- you didn’t know the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument, so I showed you. You claimed there were no valid arguments for the existence of God, so I came up with one and refuted you on the spot. You didn’t know how presuppositions work in logic (apparently you are still fuzzy on this one though, so we will work on it), so I showed you. You tried to use logic to disprove logic, so I showed you why that was absurd. You have learned a lot today, just think of what you may learn tomorrow! The world is your oyster.

[The Grand Nudger]

Its a more amusing recap yes, mine just left a sad feeling in my heart.

---

A question, you believe the argument to be sound, but wouldn't use it in a debate? That's a strange place to be in. If I had a sound argument for something people were giving me shit about, I'd be all over it. Are there any other "sound arguments" that you WOULD use in a debate?

---

I never liked that argument either by the way. Biblical inerrancy is more a conclusion than a premise. May valid arguments contain fallacies? Would it not be accurate to say that presuppositionalism commits the informal fallacy of begging the question? Is the comparison of logic, or reason, and scripture specifically the fallacy of false analogy?

[The Grand Nudger]

- You are right; the way you behave is completely inconsistent with your atheism.
- It’s not a claim to truth; it’s a claim to inerrancy, the ultimate standard to judge truth. You have a different inerrant standard to judge it by? Didn’t think so.
- I didn’t say all logical arguments come down to beliefs, that one does though. You can’t prove it is not sound so don’t even waste your time.
- A better recap would be- you didn’t know the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument, so I showed you. You claimed there were no valid arguments for the existence of God, so I came up with one and refuted you on the spot. You didn’t know how presuppositions work in logic (apparently you are still fuzzy on this one though, so we will work on it), so I showed you. You tried to use logic to disprove logic, so I showed you why that was absurd. You have learned a lot today, just think of what you may learn tomorrow! The world is your oyster.

Quoting is fun.

1: Of course we have such a worldview, you wouldn't have anything to bitch and moan about in IDiocy threads if we didn't.

2: Inerrancy: Freedom from error or untruth. Complete failure to respond, on top of obfuscation. You seem to be implying here that all empirical knowledge is counterfeit, good for you.

3: ["I believe" scripture is inerrant] is a different argument. You're attempting a bait and switch. I concede that argument, I believe that you believe. As to your claim of inerrancy, whether or not I can prove it isn't true is irrelevant, you must prove it to be true.

I'm glad we had this conversation. I did learn a lot about logic. Your logic. I'm also glad that you refuse to allow an argument against logic. This provides me with the opportunity to ask you to communicate your valid, sound argument for the existence of your god. As a layperson logic can be very nebulous to me, it's good to have a competent tutor in this field, even if you make a few errors here and there. Your reference to presuppositions being one that I'm actually very familiar with, though I think you may have only been exposed to a single point of view in this regard.

I'm waiting, baited breath.

[Statler Waldorf]

A question, you believe the argument to be sound, but wouldn't use it in a debate? That's a strange place to be in. If I had a sound argument for something people were giving me shit about, I'd be all over it. Are there any other "sound arguments" that you WOULD use in a debate?

If I were more of a classical apologist I would use an argument similar to that one, but I am not, I prefer presuppositionalism. So I have my reasons for not using the argument. At least you are now using proper terminology now and no longer mixing up valid and sound, I am proud of you Rhythm. :-)

I never liked that argument either by the way. Biblical inerrancy is more a conclusion than a premise.

According to? You still have not given me your inerrant standard you use to judge other truth claims by.

May valid arguments contain fallacies? Would it not be accurate to say that presuppositionalism commits the informal fallacy of begging the question?

I don't see why it would, so you are going to have to elaborate more on that one.

Is the comparison of logic, or reason, and scripture specifically the fallacy of false analogy?

Where did I compare the too? You asked for examples of other presuppositions so I gave you the example of logic. I believe that logical reasoning is justified by scripture; it has no justification in an atheistic world though.

---

I'm glad we had this conversation. I did learn a lot about logic.

Yes I am glad we did too, and I am glad you learned a few things. It's very difficult to discuss such things if the other person doens't know the basics (such as the difference between validity and soundness). So it's been a productive day.

[The Grand Nudger]

Presuppositionalists make the argument that all forms of knowledge begin with assumptions. Of course, with regards to apologetics, they are allowing everyone else a tool, say, reason, or sense experience, but demanding all of theology as their own tool. That is a false analogy.

It is also begging the question, as it presupposes the truth of christian theism in order to prove christian theism. You're the logic monkey, you should already be aware of this.

I actually made a thread about this specifically, if you want to take it there. We've drifted off topic, besides, I want to keep this thread seperate for posting syllogisms in mathematical formats, and demanding that you provide me with a single scientific discovery achieved through divine revelation.

(maybe I'm precognitive Statler)

[Statler Waldorf]

Presuppositionalists make the argument that all forms of knowledge begin with assumptions. Of course, with regards to apologetics, they are allowing everyone else a tool, say, reason, or sense experience, but demanding all of theology as their own tool. That is a false analogy.

Where do they say this? Who is your source for this? Bart Ehrman again? lol

It is also begging the question, as it presupposes the truth of christian theism in order to prove christian theism. You're the logic monkey, you should already be aware of this.

Glad you explained because I would have never known what you were trying to get at here because it's a total misrepresentation. They don't use Christian theism to prove Christian theism; they use negation, the impossibility of the contrary to prove Christian theism, which is not circular at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

I actually got that from the most recent advocates of presuppositionalist thought. If you do not share this position, you've fooled me, since you made a reference to the presupposition of logic. But if that's "not in your bible" by all means, feel free to expound.

The second claim is also wonderful, apparently you have some new sort of presuppositionalism, expound.

By the way, that argument against the P (Imma call it P to make it easier) was from William Lane Craig.

[Statler Waldorf]

I actually got that from the most recent advocates of presuppositionalist thought.

Like who?

The second claim is also wonderful, apparently you have some new sort of presuppositionalism, expound.

By the way, that argument against the P (Imma call it P to make it easier) was from William Lane Craig.

WLC is a classic apologist, so of course he is not going to approve of "P". So do you also agree with WLC when he makes the cosmological argument or do you only use him as a source when it is self serving?