RE: Silly Creationist
June 30, 2011 at 4:49 pm
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 29, 2011 at 9:07 pm)thebigfudge Wrote:
Yes senses are subjective by definition, that’s why a person must assume their senses are basically reliable before they can learn anything or make sense of the world around them. Sure they can make mistakes and be deceived, but if they were deceived all the time you could not learn anything right?
The same goes for memory, the things I remember doing and learning are for the most part accurate. If my memory was not basically reliable I could not learn anything about the world around me.
As for your previous point about morality being relative, I do not really accept this. I feel that moral relativism is a self-refuting position. Let me ask you a question, would you then say that people should not force their moral views onto other people?
I also do not believe you can make a case that the laws of logic arose from human understanding; I believe that they have to be absolute and universally applicable. Of course this could not be accounted for in a purely naturalistic or materialistic universe. So whenever an atheist attempts to reason or argue logically they have to assume the principles of the Christian worldview are true in order to do this which of course means they have lost the debate at the moment it begins.
Thanks for actually trying to discuss my points though, rather than just running from the issue and laughing it off like everyone else besides FNM has done. If it is such an easy point to refute then I am not sure why everyone seems so reluctant to even try. So kudos.
(June 29, 2011 at 11:58 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:Well I would not call this nit picking FNM, you are trying to get at the heart of the matter and I appreciate it. Well I feel this is a bit different than a person having gaps in their scientific understanding. It is far more serious than that, it appears the atheist has gaps in their very epistemological foundation, which is not a good thing at all. It violates the principle of sufficient reason just to say, “Well I cannot justify my assumptions in my worldview but I use them anyways.” Christians are always criticized when they use this sort of reasoning, why would it be ok for atheists to use it with their very foundations? If you can’t give a justification for the laws of logic given your worldview, then why use them? Thanks for actually taking part in the discussion!
(June 30, 2011 at 9:19 am)Rhythm Wrote:Violating the principle of sufficient reason and holding to assumptions that cannot be justified by a person’s worldview is not strength but rather a fatal flaw.
(June 29, 2011 at 9:20 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: The assumption at this point is not whether he's lying or not, but simply what he's lying about.
You have any actual evidence that I am lying?
