Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 29, 2011 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ugh, Wikipedia.
Ugh, answersingenesis!
(June 29, 2011 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: In order for any knowledge to be gained, you have to presuppose that we live in a universe created by the God of the Bible because it is only this universe that could even be intelligible. So the fact that you are even trying to make an argument against God's existence is in turn proving His existence because you would be unable to even do this in an atheistic universe.
Meh, Swinburnes, Kalam, any number of cosmological arguments. Doesn't really make a difference which you're employing. You know this is the second chance I've had to post this link up in two days.
Please explain to me how your argument differs from the cosmological argument (which, for reasons explained at length, is unsound)
Ugh, Wikipedia. Not sure where you get the idea that the cosmological argument is necessarily unsound just because some atheistic/agnostic logicians objected to it, there are many theistic logicians who do believe it is sound. That being said, I was not making a cosmological argument at all, but rather a presuppositoinal one. In order for any knowledge to be gained, you have to presuppose that we live in a universe created by the God of the Bible because it is only this universe that could even be intelligible. So the fact that you are even trying to make an argument against God's existence is in turn proving His existence because you would be unable to even do this in an atheistic universe.
So the fact that you can argue against God is the proof of god. So if I argue against Ganesh does that mean that i prove his existence ?
I used to live in a room full of mirrors; all I could see was me. I take my spirit and I crash my mirrors, now the whole world is here for me to see. Jimi Hendrix
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not. Kurt Cobain
(June 29, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Darwinian Wrote: That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Think about it; think about all the things you have to presuppose are true before you can learn anything. Now think about how these things could possibly be accounted for in the atheistic worldview. They can't.
I see how this works. It's like Dorothy and her "there's no place like home" bit but taken a bit further: "There's no home" means there is one, because to even say that there wasn't must presuppose that there must be.
So the fact that you can argue against God is the proof of god. So if I argue against Ganesh does that mean that i prove his existence ?
No, because a worldview that assumes the existence of Genesh cannot account for the preconditions necessary for intelligibility like the Christian God can.
(June 29, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Darwinian Wrote: That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Think about it; think about all the things you have to presuppose are true before you can learn anything. Now think about how these things could possibly be accounted for in the atheistic worldview. They can't.
What are you talking about? You learn through observation, experience, intelligence and problem solving. What has this got to do with the Christian worldview?
Are you saying that prior to Christianity any attempt to investigate the universe would have been futile?
So the fact that you can argue against God is the proof of god. So if I argue against Ganesh does that mean that i prove his existence ?
No, because a worldview that assumes the existence of Genesh cannot account for the preconditions necessary for intelligibility like the Christian God can.
Like what ?
I used to live in a room full of mirrors; all I could see was me. I take my spirit and I crash my mirrors, now the whole world is here for me to see. Jimi Hendrix
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not. Kurt Cobain
June 29, 2011 at 7:17 pm (This post was last modified: June 29, 2011 at 7:22 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 29, 2011 at 7:11 pm)Darwinian Wrote:
(June 29, 2011 at 7:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(June 29, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Darwinian Wrote: That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Think about it; think about all the things you have to presuppose are true before you can learn anything. Now think about how these things could possibly be accounted for in the atheistic worldview. They can't.
What are you talking about? You learn through observation, experience, intelligence and problem solving. What has this got to do with the Christian worldview?
Are you saying that prior to Christianity any attempt to investigate the universe would have been futile?
Sure those are the mechanisms you learn by, but there are certain conditions that have to be true in order to use those mechanisms right? You have to presuppose that these are true in order to began observing and learning. I am saying that these conditions cannot be accounted for in an atheistic world. The atheist assumes they are true because he has to, but he cannot account for them given his worldview. So people could certainly learn before Christianity, but they were assuming truths that could only be explained by the existence of the God of the Bible. Does that make more sense?
(June 29, 2011 at 7:13 pm)thebigfudge Wrote:
Like what ?
Absolute morality
A person's senses are generally reliable
A person's memory is generally reliable
There is an underlying uniformity to nature
The future will usually resemble the past
There are laws of logic and we should adhere to them
All of these can be accounted for in a Biblical worldview, they cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview even though they are assumed to be true.
![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)
