Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Example?

Also, I am quite surprised that no one has pointed out yet that the inability to present an alternative theory says nothing of the validity of your own.

Well a good example would be the uniformity of nature, it is impossible to justify inductive reasoning given an atheistic world; despite this the atheist still believes in the principle and uses it even though only the Christian worldview can justify it.

Appealing to some other worldview that has not yet been found that can justify the preconditions of knowledge is really just an appeal to ignorance and does nothing to justify the atheistic worldviews since they have been shown to all fail.

Seems that everyone missed the demonstration part but you. Ryft is more condescending (if one calvinist can be said to be more condescending than another), does that make his presentation less refined?

I don’t find Calvinists condescending at all. They are usually very philosophically and biblically astute but not condescending towards others.

Well you first said he explained it better, now you say it is more refined? I’ll give you that his explanation is more refined, but I try to keep mine fairly simple and straightforward for you.

You really missed the demonstration? One of them was even with you, I demonstrated the uniformity of nature can be justified given the Christian worldview; you have yet to provide a justification for it that is not logically fallacious using your atheistic worldview. That’s a pretty good demonstration right there.

---

Chapter 2 of Genesis says otherwise.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
...
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Chapter 1: Plants, Sun, Animals, Man and Woman
Chapter 2: Man, Plants, Animals, Woman

All that on the first page.

---

You know the word contradiction has a specific meaning right? You can’t just call something a contradiction and it becomes one.
God creating plants and vegetation on day three and then turning around and creating more vegetation specifically designed for Adam on day six is in no way a contradiction. Show me where it says, “God only created vegetation on day three and created more vegetation on day six” and you might have something there.

I value his response, why else?

Why? Only because you like the answers he gives you better than someone who has actually studied the topic for years like Ryft?

This is actually only one of a couple different common explanations, and all of them have serious problems

Assertion that has not been demonstrated.

Interestingly, the article mentions the verse where Yahweh created the birds out of the ground in chapter 2, glossing over the fact that they were created from the water in chapter 1. For purpose of contrast, I will quote chapter 1 in red and 2 in blue:

Uh oh, someone didn’t do their homework, when I picked up my Bible and read those verses I see nothing about the birds being created out of water in verse 20.

“20And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[a] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." -ESV

1. Yahweh created the birds on day 5 in Gen 1, not day 6.

Again, not doing your homework, when I picked up my Bible and read verse 19 it clearly states that God “had formed” the birds out of the ground. Since it states in Chapter 1 that he did this on Day 5 this verse is not in contradiction to chapter 1 since it is clearly in past tense.

“19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[a] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” ESV (Emphasis added by SW)

2. Gen 2 spells out that plants didn't take root because man wasn't around to till the soil, but this wasn't a problem on day 3 in Gen 1 (when the freaking sun hadn't been invented yet).

Obviously the “plants of the field” in Genesis 2 are not the same kind of plants as in Genesis 1 since the ones in Genesis 2 require tilling. This really is not that hard you know; I am still waiting for that logical contradiction.

3. Gen 1 spells out that man and woman were created "together" and yet Gen 2 spells out that the creation of woman came later, only once the problem of companionship for man couldn't be solved otherwise.

They were created together on day 6, not a contradiction since the word together is relative to the time period being described.

(And so we go deeper into the rabbit hole where apologists pull out more flimsy rationalizations in an ever increasingly long list of ad hoc hypotheses to assure us that there are no contradictions in the Lord's Word, that it only "seems" that way to those hard hearted scoffers blah blah blah. I've been down this road many times.)

Then you should know better. Flimsy rationalizations? I have shown you very easily how these alleged contradictions are not even discrepancies in the text much less actual contradictions (x and not x in the same relationship and at the same time). I guess if the Bible really had logical contradictions you would have presented them since now would have been the perfect time, or are you saving them for later?

You won't mind providing a link to where you've demonstrated this, would you?

Well Rhythm's and my conversation about the principle of induction in the incredulous logic thread is a pretty good example. I demonstrated that scripture can justify the principle of induction and he has yet to provide a justification for it that is not logically fallacious. If you wish to give it a try you are more than welcome to.

I've made no such claims.

Whew!

[Jackalope]

You won't mind providing a link to where you've demonstrated this, would you?

Well Rhythm's and my conversation about the principle of induction in the incredulous logic thread is a pretty good example. I demonstrated that scripture can justify the principle of induction and he has yet to provide a justification for it that is not logically fallacious. If you wish to give it a try you are more than welcome to.

You originally claimed this -

I demonstrated that not only can Christianity account for the preconditions of intelligibility, but it is the only proposed worldview that can do this.

Now you're claiming that "scripture can justify the principle of induction". Not the same thing.

I have been following that thread. I remain as unconvinced as Rhythm. As far as I can tell, you've demonstrated nothing outside of your own mind - certainly not to me. Any logical argument that considers scriptural accuracy as axiomatic isn't going to carry any weight with me. Sorry.

You also make the mistake of thinking that Rhythm (or anyone else) needs to provide a model of their own to debunk yours. They don't.

Lest you think otherwise, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. I only wanted to know what your "demonstration" consisted of. Now that you've confirmed it, I can see that continuing this discussion would be an enormous waste of my time.

[Statler Waldorf]

You originally claimed this -

I demonstrated that not only can Christianity account for the preconditions of intelligibility, but it is the only proposed worldview that can do this.

Now you're claiming that "scripture can justify the principle of induction". Not the same thing.

Actually it is the same thing. Scripture is part of my worldview, and the uniformity in nature is one of the preconditions of intelligibility. So my statement was accurate.

I have been following that thread. I remain as unconvinced as Rhythm. As far as I can tell, you've demonstrated nothing outside of your own mind - certainly not to me. Any logical argument that considers scriptural accuracy as axiomatic isn't going to carry any weight with me. Sorry.

You being unconvinced by my argument is irrelevant. Using your own axiomatic ultimate authority (something you have yet to identify but I am sure you possess) to argue against my axiomatic ultimate authority is futile. The only problem is that you have to borrow from my ultimate standard to argue against it.

You also make the mistake of thinking that Rhythm (or anyone else) needs to provide a model of their own to debunk yours. They don't.

You are right, they do not have to; if they want to behave irrationally they are entitled to do so. However, if they want to behave rationally they must adhere to the principle of sufficient reason and give account for having the assumptions they have. This is something neither he nor you have done to date, so you are behaving irrationally by failing to do so.

Lest you think otherwise, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. I only wanted to know what your "demonstration" consisted of. Now that you've confirmed it, I can see that continuing this discussion would be an enormous waste of my time.

Running from presuppositional apologetics is an irrational but unfortunately all too common defense taken by atheists. I’ll be here if you wish to come back though because I enjoy listening to other’s beliefs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christians can't help but tell others what they must or must not do. Can they. Have you ever considered that you may have imagined an omnipotent god (who agrees with your every whim) to deal with your powerlessness in the face of others, and their unwillingness to bend to your desires and persuasions? Your concept of god seems to be one that you have assumed to feed your own ego. A god that makes your discredited "scientific theories" correct, a god that makes your views of morality "true", a god that places you in a different position than that of the wretched unwashed which you despise so much (but nonetheless belong to). A god that makes you smart, a god that will punish those who disagree with you.

To me, your god seems as small as you.

[Jackalope]

[Statler Waldorf]

Christians can't help but tell others what they must or must not do. Can they. Have you ever considered that you may have imagined an omnipotent god (who agrees with your every whim) to deal with your powerlessness in the face of others, and their unwillingness to bend to your desires and persuasions?

Are you telling others that they should not tell others what they should not do? Self refutation is a beautiful thing.

I didn’t write the Bible, so I assure you I didn’t “make it up” to be a self serving tool.

Your concept of god seems to be one that you have assumed to feed your own ego.

Nope, believing in a God who graciously redeemed me despite who I was before and what I justly deserved is in no way egotistical. Believing that no God owns you and you can do whatever you feel like doing in order to gain the most pleasure possible is egotistical however. So maybe you have constructed your atheistic worldview solely in order to stroke your own ego.

A god that makes your discredited "scientific theories" correct

Discredited by whom? I tried to get you to back up your scientific assertions up and you simply just said, “Because Wikipedia tells me so!!! So meh!” (Paraphrasing of course)

a god that makes your views of morality "true"

You mean the views of morality that logically have to be true if morality exists at all?

a god that places you in a different position than that of the wretched unwashed which you despise so much (but nonetheless belong to).

Yes I am placed in an undeserved category because of God’s grace. However, I do not belong to the wretched unwashed, but rather the wretched but now washed. I also hate nobody, I pray for your eventual redemption.

A god that makes you smart

God did graciously grant me with a decent level of cognitive ability, for which I am eternally grateful.

a god that will punish those who disagree with you.

Gross oversimplification, it depends on what the disagreement is and they are not being punished for disagreeing with me, they are being punished for being sinful and rebellious creatures.

To me, your god seems as small as you.

Ad Hominem puts me to sleep….Zzzzzzz

---

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

[Ace Otana]

Statler, I only wish to ask you one question. No arguing, no name calling and no other questions but the one. K? Nice and civil.

From your view, have you ever disagreed with any of your god's decisions or actions? You know, like hell, and some things that can be considered sin. Have you ever disagreed or saw faults with anything?

[Statler Waldorf]

Statler, I only wish to ask you one question. No arguing, no name calling and no other questions but the one. K? Nice and civil.

From your view, have you ever disagreed with any of your god's decisions or actions? You know, like hell, and some things that can be considered sin. Have you ever disagreed or saw faults with anything?

Ok, sounds completely fair to me. I actually prefer when things are kept civil, it becomes difficult on here sometimes though.

I think it is part of man’s fallen nature to disagree with God’s commandments and laws, so yes I would say that I do catch myself doing that. Or I find myself behaving in a manner that is contrary to God’s decreed will. When I realize I do this though, I try my best to conform my desires and thoughts to His will. There are certain things in scripture I do not understand, there are times I feel that election seems unfair, but then I realize that my concept of fairness is completely arbitrary and I need to conform it to what God tells me is fair. Since I became a Reformed Christian (a conversion that was fueled by my discussions with atheists) though scripture does make far more sense to me and the God of the Old Testament does not seem like a completely different God from the God of the New Testament like He used to.

Thanks for the question Ace, it was a good one.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ad hom..lol, no, it's an opinion. It would be an ad hom if we were debating. I'd debate something with you if you ever provided any evidence or arguments to begin with. You've been rehashing your opinions, nothing more.

[Statler Waldorf]

Ad hom..lol, no, it's an opinion. It would be an ad hom if we were debating. I'd debate something with you if you ever provided any evidence or arguments to begin with. You've been rehashing your opinions, nothing more.

Inconstancy really is part of your charm isn’t it Rhythm?

You whine about me giving opinions right after you say that what you presented was only your own opinion.

In the other thread you say all I present are tired arguments, now you say all I present are opinions and not arguments. Which are they?

You refuse to actually debate any issues because you claim you will just present Wikipedia articles rather than actually debating, then you chastise me for not debating with you.

That was all in the last ten minutes!!!