Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Strawman. I use logic because I like the results. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself here. Harping on the same argument already addressed is a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad nauseum".

Your view of logic renders logic itself completely arbitrary and utterly meaningless. Someone else could just prefer the results derived from their own laws of logic and use them to argue against you. In fact, if this was really the reason you use logic you would not waste your time debating with anyone else because you would have no universal standard to appeal to. The fact that you are debating with me is evidence that you actually believe that the laws of logic have a universal unchanging nature to them even though you cannot account for this in your worldview. Your actions don’t jive with what you claim to believe.

Ah, defending an act of begging the question with circular argumentation, how very efficient. You know that Yahweh is good because he's your ultimate standard for good and that's why you know you can use him as an accurate ultimate standard for good because he's your ultimate standard for good.

Additionally, even if your assertions about my justification for the use of logic had any merit, it would be irrelevant to our discussion because it's nothing more than a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (or "oh yeah, well, you must be wrong because your wrong about something else.")

Moving the goal posts? How?

I have already pointed out that circularity is a necessity in everyone’s worldview. There is actually an ultimate standard for a Kilogram; yes there is a unit of mass that is kept in a vault that is declared to weigh exactly one kilogram. This kilogram is then used to calibrate scales and make other weights that weigh one kilogram. Now you could play your same silly games here and ask, “Oh so you are being circular! You know that brick is a kilogram because it is your ultimate standard for kilograms and that's why you know you can use it as an accurate ultimate standard for kilograms because it is your ultimate standard for kilograms!” Yes, I know it is a kilogram because it is the ultimate standard for kilograms. All other kilogram claims are deemed to be true or false based on how they weigh in comparison to this kilogram. Asking someone to prove the ultimate standard for a kilogram is just as logically absurd as asking a Christian to prove that God is good. God by nature is good, he is the ultimate standard of goodness and all other claims are deemed to be good or evil in comparison to God. So cease the absurdity.

More classic examples of "begging the question"! You've defined whatever Yahweh wills as "good" and anything contrary as "evil". And that's how you know he must be good. Fantastic! So when you say that Yahweh is good, you mean the tautology of "Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills". And when you say his commands are good, you know that they are because they're his commands.

I have defined good and evil the way they are defined in scripture, if you are going to argue that scripture is somehow wrong by using these terms you are going to have to define them the way scripture does or else be guilty of equivocation. In order to say that anything God commanded was evil you wold have to provide a different ultimate standard of good that God Himself would have to answer to, this is something you have not and cannot do, so your claims carry no weight.
So what if someone likes the results they get when they beg the question? Are they therefore justified in doing so? Given your line of reason they would be.

Aside from my conscience and sense of empathy, where must I?

So you are judging God by something that is completely arbitrary? No wonder you think he is a big meanie, it is nothing more than just your personal opinion.
Is something good because your conscience tells you it is or does your conscience tell you something because it is good? Uh oh!!!!

Another strawman. I've said no such thing.

Yes you did. Care to answer the question? Would rape then be acceptable? If not, why not? I hope you don’t make an appeal to something completely arbitrary like people’s feelings of empathy for one another.

How?

Well you first seemed to believe morals were derived from societies, which of course would make them completely conventional because certain societies could adopt different moral laws much like they do rules of music and grammar. Now you seem to be appealing to some sort of internal moral code having to do with a conscience and feelings of empathy. This of course would also be a mere convention because people experience empathy differently and not everyone even believes they have an internal conscience. So you are appealing to two views of morality that are purely conventional in nature but then appeal to some form of transcendent and unchanging morality that God would be subject to when you speak of morality in scripture. So you are just being inconsistent all the way around.

And what do you suppose it means when the Bible discusses virgin females taken as war booty? They're taken to be house servants? (that was one apologist's claim) Then why do they have to be virgins? And you can slap the label "marriage" on it to sanitize it if you wish but it's still rape.

Here's the rule:
Sex with a slave = rape (even if you marry the slave). She has to be able to say "no" without fear in order for it not to count as rape.

So now sex within a marriage is rape? You are the one asserting this verse condones rape, so it is up to you to prove it. So far you have not done that, for all you know the marriages could have been completely consensual, which would not be rape at all. So you are going to have to provide more proof if you are going to make such an extraordinary claim.

Unless she was one of your concubines.

=== Insert here the passage and verse where God condones the rape of concubines please.

Again, only if she was betrothed or married to another. Not impressed.

Where does it say this was the punishment only if she was married or betrothed? You made a jump in logic there, if I give an outline for the punishment to be given for murder in the first degree this does not logically suggest there is no punishment for murder in the second degree as you seem to be implying.

Except you didn't draw it to any logical conclusion. That's what "appeal to ridicule" means. You can use ridicule in an argument but the ridicule must faithfully represent the absurdity of an argument. What you did was strawman my arguments in a way so silly as to not even warrant a response.

Yes I did, I gave examples of acts that everyone believes are wrong, including you, but would not be deemed wrong given your definition of morality. So if De Sade wanted others to torture him would it be morally acceptable for him to torture others? I really hope you won’t dodge this question a third time.

To note what behaviors promote survival for a given species has nothing to do with the use of any authority.

You really are all over the place with this morality thing, so now morality is determined by what is best for the species? So if there were only 100 humans alive, and the 50 women didn’t want to have kids, it would be morally acceptable for the men to rape them in order to keep the species alive? You’ll probably dodge that question as well.

OK, why do you feel the Bible has a copyright on universal morality?

It provides the only source for a universal code of morality that is not arbitrary and applies to all humans who have lived and ever will live.

In this case , I would say science and reason can provide the same benefits with greater precision. Knowing the true reasons why something is so can allow you to know when the rules apply and how. For example, not all snakes are poisonous

I assume you meant venomous. So you admit that achieving results does not prove something is true? Well then you need to provide a different justification for the laws of logic since you would not allow someone to use your same justification to justify superstition.

Appeal to authority and false. Newton was a unitarian who soundly rejected the Trinity as an anathema to his god. Galileo rejected the teachings of scripture, that the sun moved about the earth.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is an improper source. The founders of modern science are very proper source and relevant to the topic of modern science I assure you.
<= Insert passage and verse where the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth please.
Newton still derived his foundation for science from scripture, so the fact he missed the trinity is irrelevant.

And I keep asking you for chapter and verse where the Bible helps facilitate critical thinking and reason. I've not seen any reason offered, scriptural or otherwise, to suggest that universal morality or reason come from Yahweh.

I was tempted to not answer this until you answered my De Sade question, but in the interest of Christian charity I will not ignore your question.
Christians are commanded to use their minds…
“36 ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’
37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.” – Matthew 22

Christians are taught to discern morality with their minds…
“2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

”- Romans 12

Christians are commanded to justify why they believe what they believe…

15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
- 1 Peter 3

“…earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” – Jude

“4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
” – 2 Corinthians 10

That’s just the tip of the ice berg, but to say that Christians are not commanded to use logic and their minds to defend their position is just simply not true.

My brain hurts trying to take in all the fallacious reasoning provided in the above paragraph. First, as a non believer, I don't have to account for anything. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Second, you present the false dilemma that the only alternative to Christianity is solipsism. Third, your entire argument smacks of argument from ignorance. "You can't prove me wrong so I must be right" or "We don't know so I'll fill in the blanks with GodDidIt or GodWillsIt until you have something better."

That's three identifiable fallacies in a single run on sentence. Even for Christian apologist standards, I think that's a record.

You seem to still believe that just because you assert something it is necessarily so.
1. Yes you do have to account for everything, the principle of sufficient reason commands you to give a reason as to why you hold certain assumptions. If you do not comply with this then your assumptions are deemed irrational. I can provide sufficient reason for every one of the preconditions of knowledge given my worldview; you have yet to give sufficient reason for any of them given your worldview. Until you do, your worldview is deemed irrational.
2. The burden of proof lies equally on both sides, I can rationally defend my worldview, until you can comply with the principle of sufficient reason you have not yet defended yours.
3. You are the one asserting there are more rational alternatives to Christianity than Solipsism, yet you have done nothing to prove this because you refuse to behave rationally by conforming to the principle of sufficient reason.
4. It’s not an argument from ignorance, I have provided a worldview that can sufficiently account for the preconditions of knowledge and you have not provided a single alternative view that can do the same. So my argument stands not refuted.

It's not circularity since there were multiple sources of information and multiple pieces of information considered. He made a choice of what seemed most likely to be true given the weight of evidence.

He was using sensory input to verify sensory input; you can’t slice it any other way unless he was receiving information by non-sensory means.

You are presenting solipsism as the only alternative to Christianity.

It’s not the only alternative to Christianity, but it is the only alternative that can be arrived at rationally. You have helped to demonstrate this by not giving a rational account that is consistent with your worldview for the assumptions you hold.

Nope. An accusation. You are doing what I've seen all other Christians do. They see their god as wanting what they want and then use it as their justification to do what they wanted to do all along. I have accused you of doing the same thing. How do you plead?

In order to even back this accusation up you’d have to know the internal motivations and desires of all other Christians and myself. You cannot possibly know such a thing so it is a baseless and un-provable accusation.

As I keep telling you, I know it works because it provides results that I like and has sufficient predictive value as to give me confidence that science and reason will continue to do so.

Begging the question, “I know the method will work in the future because it always has in the past.” You are using the principle of induction to try and justify your use of the principle of induction. I know the principle of induction is valid because scripture gives me a justification for its use. You have no such justification besides your own arbitrary preferences.

I have kept saying that you are free to do so if that's what you prefer. That you do not and have agreed with me that rational societies are better means you understand why. You are therefore being a sophist in claiming that you don't understand my justification for the use of science and reason.

No, I use logic because I know it discerns truth and God commands me to use it. You use it because you think it’s pretty or something arbitrary like that. So I use it because I can account for it in my worldview, you use it despite the fact you cannot account for it. So you are actually being irrational in your justification for using rationality.

Well, let's go to the dictionary, then.

You probably should not have done that. The Bible uses it as it is used in definition 3, Trust. You use it to mean belief without evidence. You then use your definition (belief without evidence) to argue against the Bible’s commandments for faith (trust), even though the two words are being used completely different, that’s textbook equivocation.

In the spirit of debate, I will give you the last word, unless there is something you are just dying to hear a response to or you feel I did not answer adequately. Take care, and I enjoyed the lively discussion!

---

ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8) [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.

Zzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzz