Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

Examples of alternative science that's shown to get results? Perhaps the Amish? They eschew modern science and perhaps they feel their lives work for them. Do I need to say it again? I will. Fine. If they're happy living "simpler" lives, I will leave them to it provided they respect my freedom as well. You are the one who's saying "should". Not me.

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.

The reason I'm having this debate with you is I'm trying to understand why you feel this gibberish is some kind of "proof" of Christianity.

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.

The kilogram is a unit of measure used to record the effect of gravity on a certain mass. And yes, it's arbitrary. The French like to use kilograms. We Americans like to use ounces and pounds as units of measure. On the planet Znutinar, the Fnorbians use cakopaxzils as their unit of measure. The unit of measure is a matter of culture. The French invented their system because they decided they didn't like the way the British system worked. Maybe when we all learn about the Fnorbian method, we'll all decide to switch to theirs.

Here's the thing about that: What it measures is objective even if the method of measuring it is a subjective choice. Mass, distance, velocity, etc. don't change just because you measure them in miles, kilometers or the Fnorbian Xnepobroxises.

So to use your kilogram example, a scale that is set to measure weight in kilograms doesn't decide to measure in kilograms. It simply measures weight the way it was created. Is this your analogy of God and how It weighs out morality? Then morality exists outside of God and what is right and wrong would remain so with or without It. Your analogy gets you nowhere. Nice try though.

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.

And how have you determined this? Simply declaring "God is good", or in your case "Yahweh is good", is not convincing to anyone not indoctrinated into the cult of Christ. All you've done is beg the question.

So in the final analysis, you can't do any better than beg the question and back it up with circular reasoning?

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.

Logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. You make the claim, you back it up.

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.

Well, if your desired results are to lose credibility with your audience and be wholly unconvincing to anyone not already indoctrinated, then yes, feel free to beg the question all you like.

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.

I think it would be an opinion shared by anyone who detests rape, slavery, genocide, torture, cruelty etc.

Is something good because your conscience tells you it is or does your conscience tell you something because it is good? Uh oh!!!!

My conscience is attempting to measure morality outside itself so that would be the latter.

Yes you did.

No, I didn't.

In fact, I corrected you when you attempted to strawman me the first time.

Now, since you've used the same strawman three times, you should do one of two things:

1. Quote me
2. Apologize

Care to answer the question? Would rape then be acceptable?

I already have answered that question. The answer was and is no.

If not, why not?

Because it infringes upon the rights of another.

I hope you don’t make an appeal to something completely arbitrary like people’s feelings of empathy for one another.

Empathy and caring about the feelings and rights of others is the foundation for our moral judgment.

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.

No, I said that morality was an evolutionary strength, allowing us to form communities and work together for the good of the whole. This is not to say that every society gets it right all the time. I have made it clear my disapproval of OT society that felt rape of sex slaves was wrong. We have been evolving morally as well as biologically and have been improving for some time now.

Things that used to be accepted in our society, like slavery, mistreatment of women and other things enshrined in your "holy book", are now looked upon with disgust. These are now moral no-brainers where they used to divide our society, sometimes in great civil wars.

I believe we are improving our understanding of morality but these strides are not because of the influence of Christianity. Quite to the contrary, Christianity and the Bible have been on the wrong side of many of these issues.

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.

I would say you are the one who is inconsistent when you say that a being is above any moral consideration simply because it is more powerful or immortal.

So now sex within a marriage is rape?

Your strawmen attacks are getting tiresome.

No, I did not say that.

I said that slapping the label "marriage" on it makes no difference. Rape is still rape when it is without her consent.

You are the one asserting this verse condones rape, so it is up to you to prove it.

I presented a video which offered detailed analysis of rape and genocide in the Bible. In the interest of saving me time, I would appreciate it if you could watch it.

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

I was talking about casual sex. The fact that many of the holy men of the OT kept concubines would indicate that the OT god wasn't so concerned about unmarried sex.

Where does it say this was the punishment only if she was married or betrothed?

The verses you quoted. If she was not married or betrothed, the man pays a fine to her father and she has to marry him.

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.

Not unless the tortures were willing. It's a violation of their rights otherwise. It astounds me you think you made a point that needed address at all, never mind a good one.

You really are all over the place with this morality thing, so now morality is determined by what is best for the species?

I didn't say that.

How many strawmen is that now? I've lost track.

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.

So we should all submit to kings (Romans 13)? We should all obey our masters if we are slaves (Ephesians 6:5-6)? Or kill the gays (Lev 20:13)? I can think of better books to live by.

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.

Maybe I missed it. What was wrong with my answer that science provides greater precision and is instructive on the "whys" in ways that "it's just magic" is not?

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is an improper source.

...which is the case if you use scientists who lived in ancient times who happened to be living in a strongly Christian society as an endorsement of Christianity.

The founders of modern science are very proper source and relevant to the topic of modern science I assure you.

...but not relevant to Christianity or the topic of whether or not scripture fosters rationality and science.

<= Insert passage and verse where the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth please.

Joshua 10:12-13
Eccles 1:5
Psalms 19:4-6
...and verses that say the earth is fixed in place, unmovable:
1chron 16:30
Psalms 93:1
Psalms 96:10

Newton still derived his foundation for science from scripture,

Prove it or bullpucky

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

FAIL! Do I really need to explain why?

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

I'd respond with Deuteronomy 29:19-20

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

Hasn't happened yet.

You seem to still believe that just because you assert something it is necessarily so.

***SPROING***

My irony meter just overloaded.

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.

I've yet to hear you offer any justification aside from GodWillsIt and even this vapid reasoning is compounded by the fact you can't possibly know what God really wills. I reject your Bible the same way you reject a Muslim's Koran. To claim your revelation is special, and for that matter, your denomination's interpretation of said holy book is the correct one, is just special pleading.

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.

No, it doesn't lie with both sides. It lies with the side that is making a claim. You have made a variety of claims, from knowing the will of God to knowing that this god is the source and measure of morality. You have offered no arguments aside from begging the question and running around in more circles than a dog chasing its tail.

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.

You want more examples? How about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a wide variety of other religions that you reject through special pleading. All religions claim to know the truth and none offer any evidence.

As for my beliefs in using what is shown to work, I'm still mystified why I have to show any further justification.

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.

First of all, no you have not. Secondly, even if I provided no alternative, that doesn't mean your view is true. That is the very definition of argument from ignorance.

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.

But his same senses were telling him conflicting things. Just like when we find contradictions in the Bible, we know it can't always be true, so to he doubted his senses when they contradicted each other. This is my example of what it would take to get me to doubt my senses.

It’s not the only alternative to Christianity, but it is the only alternative that can be arrived at rationally.

Oh, I've already said that solipsism is technically true and stupid to live by. We assume our memory and senses are true until we see reason to think otherwise.

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.

So why don't you tell me what your internal motives and desires are, then?

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.

This is another example of "appeal to ridicule". "I use logic because it's pretty" sounds funny but that's not what I said. What I said is I use it because it works.

You use "GodWillsIt" as your escape clause but that's bs unless you are ready to seriously suggest to me that there's even the possibility you wouldn't use reason and science unless you were a Christian.

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 this case, common usage of the word. Most people when they say "faith" mean, as the dictionary itself does in its examples, religious faith or belief without evidence.

If you have evidence that God sent himself as his own son who was also him down to earth to bleed on a cross as the only means that he could convince himself to forgive us for being the sinful beings we are because an ancestor who was made from a rib ate a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake and if we don't telepathically communicate with the holy godman who flew into the sky that he is our master he'll torture us forever because he loves us so much, than please do tell. I'm all ears.

See, you can use ridicule in an argument.

---

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Thanks. I needed a laugh after torturing myself with Stat's festival of strawman, circular reasoning and begging the question.