Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Faith No More]

Well, since you've gone this far, what are these supposed necessary preconditions for intelligibility in scripture?

[The Grand Nudger]

Tell you what Stat, don't tell us that you CAN invalidate all wordviews but christianity. Do it. Put up or shut up.

[Statler Waldorf]

Which could be used as an argument for any god, so to use this as an argument for the Christian God is dubious and taking a leap in logic that is unjustified.

Not really, because only the Christian God revealed Himself in scripture and says he will never contradict Himself and implores us to do the same. He also owns His creation so He has the authority to do so. This would require a personal God. So as you move down the list of necessary characteristics you end up with a God that is the Christian God. All powerful, knowing, and good.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really, because only the Christian God revealed Himself in scripture and says he will never contradict Himself and implores us to do the same. He also owns His creation so He has the authority to do so. This would require a personal God. So as you move down the list of necessary characteristics you end up with a God that is the Christian God. All powerful, knowing, and good.

So you claim, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

[Faith No More]

Not really, because only the Christian God revealed Himself in scripture and says he will never contradict Himself and implores us to do the same. He also owns His creation so He has the authority to do so. This would require a personal God. So as you move down the list of necessary characteristics you end up with a God that is the Christian God. All powerful, knowing, and good.

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.

[Statler Waldorf]

quote='DeistPaladin' pid='166784' dateline='1313787600']
I don't believe I did use the word "should" but letting that go for a moment, do I understand you correctly when you say that making statements of "should" borrow from the Christian worldview? How exactly is the word "should" a Christian word or indicative of Christian thinking? [/quote]

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. The only being that could make transcendental and universal moral standards would be some sort of god. The only God who has revealed to us what these standards are would be the God of the Bible. So the point is that when atheists call the God of the Bible immoral they are appealing to a standard of morality that could only be set by the God of the Bible. 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.

Morality and our evaluations of it are rooted in our sense of empathy for one another as social animals. We build communities and depend on each other for survival. We therefore have, as a matter of evolutionary necessity, formed a social contract with each other. The exact fine print of each contract will vary somewhat between cultures but basic concepts like prohibitions of murder, theft, and other activities detrimental to a functioning civilization, are found uniformly.

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?

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).

Why do we need to justify the use of logic? To whom must we justify its use? Why do we need to determine where it comes from?

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?

As for the "should" question, we choose to because it produces results. We wish to live in a rational society because we prefer the setting to one dominated by superstition.

I'm using bold emphasis to underscore that the preference for science and reason is a value judgment and matter of taste based on the results we see. If you wish to live in a society governed by superstition, this is your choice and there are places in the world that might suit you.

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 have a justification for using logic because I was created by a God whose thoughts are logical and who commands me to also be logical. So saying I want to live in a society that is not rational is just a red herring.

I've offered the naturalist justification above but even using "GodWillsIt", what makes Yahweh-Jesus superior to Nature's God?

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. This would in turn render science itself unjustified; something I am sure no one on here wants to live with.

Are we invoking solipsism here? I assume my senses and memory are accurate barring evidence to the contrary. Everyone else who is capable of functioning in the real world does so as well.

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

What if the only revealed word is the Natural Universe?

Then there would be no basis for knowledge or inquiry.

---

So you claim, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Can you give an example of another god who has done so? I have never seen this. Although this is not real relevant, because even if you can find another god who has done so, it does not justify your current atheism.

[Paul the Human]

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).

I know that I am not a part of this discussion, nor have I read all of it. That being said, the quoted line jumped out at me.

Societies end up with similar moral codes, because they have an innate instinct that was created through evolution and biochemistry. Gathering into tribes benefits the species, therefore, fitting into society enhances the chances of individual survival. And I could go on into boring detail, but I don't want to. I think you've heard it before, but there isn't any need for magic, so you've rejected it.

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

You just quoted romans to prove that scripture was true. hock: It doesn't matter whether or not you believe that your argument isn't circular. It is. Mr Fucking Math isn't Logic over here. This is embarrassing.

---

Can you give an example of another god who has done so? I have never seen this. Although this is not real relevant, because even if you can find another god who has done so, it does not justify your current atheism.

Can you give an example of any god who has done so?

[Statler Waldorf]

I know that I am not a part of this discussion, nor have I read all of it. That being said, the quoted line jumped out at me.

Societies end up with similar moral codes, because they have an innate instinct that was created through evolution and biochemistry. Gathering into tribes benefits the species, therefore, fitting into society enhances the chances of individual survival. And I could go on into boring detail, but I don't want to. I think you've heard it before, but there isn't any need for magic, so you've rejected it.

Well you are always welcome in any discussion Paul. Although I feel you have kind of taken a shot at me with the "magic" comment. So I will take a shot back, why are not all animals living in societies then? Oh let me guess, "Because evolution favored them living solitary"? It's amazing how flexible you guys all make evolutionary theory; it's become nothing more than a "God did it" answer to these questions. It still doesn't solve the transcendent nature of morality that even Kant recognized though.