Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Oh. we're debating? Bring an argument next time. "I believe in supernatural things" is just a proclamation of faith.

You stating that I have not presented any arguments is not an argument against the arguments I have clearly presented.

[Statler Waldorf]

Hey Sam,

Ok here it goes, can your worldview justify the assumption that the future will for the most part resemble the past providing a basis for the principle of induction that all of science is based on?

[The Grand Nudger]

Evidence? Here, baby steps for you.

How does christianity deal with the "problem of induction"
-quotes cherry picked bible verse-
Is this document you're sourcing from reliable?
-Has nothing-
Does this god exist to "tell" us anything in the first place?
-Has nothing-
Okay, assuming that something does exist, why not the religion I just made up and have here on my notepad?
-We have evidence-
What evidence?
-There can be no evidence/This thoroughly discredited evidence/That's not what were discussing-

/repeat
(throw in some claims to success, intelligence, and the always amusing "I work for the government!")

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Evidence? Here, baby steps for you.

How does christianity deal with the "problem of induction"
-quotes cherry picked bible verse-
Is this document you're sourcing from reliable?
-Has nothing-
Does this god exist to "tell" us anything in the first place?
-Has nothing-
Okay, assuming that something does exist, why not the religion I just made up and have here on my notepad?
-We have evidence-
What evidence?
-There can be no evidence/This thoroughly discredited evidence/That's not what were discussing-

/repeat
(throw in some claims to success, intelligence, and the always amusing "I work for the government!")

---

You just don’t get it do you? Why are you appealing to evidentialism in a discussion about the internal consistency of worldviews? The Christian has no induction problem because God upholds His Creation in a consistent and predictable manner allowing us to make predictions and conduct science. Now it is up to you to solve the problem of induction given your atheism.

[DeistPaladin]

"GodDidIt" or "GodWillsIt" is always an easy out to problems that only exist in the Christian mind in the first place.

[Statler Waldorf]

"GodDidIt" or "GodWillsIt" is always an easy out to problems that only exist in the Christian mind in the first place.

So is "evolutiondidit" for the non-Christian. So none of you can solve the problem of induction? So the Christian worldview holds the trump card there?

[DeistPaladin]

So is "evolutiondidit" for the non-Christian.

Evolution isn't a deity or any other being. Evolution is a process of change over time as suited to a specific environment. So saying "EvolutionDidIt" is like saying "DoingDidIt".

So none of you can solve the problem of induction?

There isn't one. I think I've already answered that. We use reason because we choose to. We need no further justification than that.

The "problem of induction" is a manufactured quandary to accompany their contrived definition of an imaginary god in order to create evidence to justify a worldview that eschews reliance on evidence.

You can declare victory if it pleases you to do so.

[Statler Waldorf]

Evolution isn't a deity or any other being.

Never said it was, it is still treated like it is one though.

So saying "EvolutionDidIt" is like saying "DoingDidIt".

Not it is actually fallacious personification. Evolution can’t “do” anything.

There isn't one. I think I've already answered that. We use reason because we choose to. We need no further justification than that.

We are not talking about the use of reason; we are talking about the assumption that the future will resemble the past. In a purely natural world you have no basis to make this assumption, and yet you do anyway. Why?

If you have to assume something to be true that can only be justified by a belief in the God of scripture you are actually proving that the God of scripture exists through negation.

The "problem of induction" is a manufactured quandary to accompany their contrived definition of an imaginary god in order to create evidence to justify a worldview that eschews reliance on evidence.

Oh really? Do you know who addressed the problem of induction more than anyone? David Hume and Bertrand Russell, were they Christians? Nope both atheists, but they still recognized that it is a problem that has never been solved by the unbeliever.

[DeistPaladin]

Never said it was, it is still treated like it is one though.

By whom? I've never seen a church of evolution. There are no evolutionist priests that I'm aware of.

We are not talking about the use of reason; we are talking about the assumption that the future will resemble the past. In a purely natural world you have no basis to make this assumption, and yet you do anyway. Why?

Sorry about that. We're discussing a different problem then.

This difference in "worldviews" underscores how GodDidIt isn't satisfying as an answer. Science doesn't just study what happened but also why. Knowing the whys of what happened in the past offers a model for what will happen in the future. Baring any discovery of other factors, the default assumption should be that what has happened will continue happen (kind of like saying "these are the only factors we know of so our assumption is that these are the only factors until we discover other factors" (also see burden of proof, that something is assumed not to exist until we have reason to believe that it does)). On the other hand, saying GodDidIt, GodWillsIt or GodIsDoingIt offers us no understanding of the whys of it (to say nothing of the leap that this God must be Yahweh).

If you have to assume something to be true that can only be justified by a belief in the God of scripture you are actually proving that the God of scripture exists through negation.

First of all, this is an argument from ignorance. We don't know and so you take that as license to say GodIsDoingIt. Why not just say we don't know. Second, proving a god doesn't necessarily prove your god.

[Statler Waldorf]

Science doesn't just study what happened but also why. Knowing the whys of what happened in the past offers a model for what will happen in the future.

Science assumes the principle of induction is valid, so you can’t use science to justify the principle of induction, to do so would be begging the question.

Baring any discovery of other factors, the default assumption should be that what has happened will continue happen…

This would only be the case if there was an underlying uniformity in nature present; this of course is the very thing we are discussing so you are begging the question here.

(also see burden of proof, that something is assumed not to exist until we have reason to believe that it does)).

That’s not burden of proof, that’s an argument from ignorance. You contradicted yourself here, you said that we will assume the uniformity of nature exists until we see otherwise, and then here you said that something is assumed to not exist (so no uniformity in nature) until we have evidence that it does. Which is it?

On the other hand, saying GodDidIt, GodWillsIt or GodIsDoingIt offers us no understanding of the whys of it (to say nothing of the leap that this God must be Yahweh).

Actually it does give us a why; it gives a reason as to why we can assume the uniformity of nature exists. God revealed to man in Genesis that he will uphold creation in a consistent and predictable manner allowing us to make predictions and to gain knowledge. It has to be Yahweh because Yahweh is the only God that has revealed such a truth to us.

First of all, this is an argument from ignorance. We don't know and so you take that as license to say GodIsDoingIt. Why not just say we don't know. Second, proving a god doesn't necessarily prove your god.

It’s not an argument from ignorance at all, you saying that there could be some other God other than Yahweh who has not revealed itself to us is one though. My worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, yours cannot, the fact that you still assume it is true even though you cannot account for it is proof that my worldview is correct. You have to borrow from my worldview in order to even argue against it, that is not a good sign for your worldview.