Give enough rope...
I heard a Christian apologist once say that if you give the unbeliever enough rope he will eventually hang himself...this statement is so true.
In one of my posts I said that logic rested upon, universals, abstract entities, the immaterial, and absolutes.
One unbeliever responded by saying this about logic...
"No universals, abstract entities, immaterial or spiritual absolutes are involved. In fact, they are scrupulously avoided."
Someone out there please explain to me how logic works without any categories or universals...just individual particulars?
Are thoughts material? If so, then they are material "juice" flowing inside of my head, and since my head is not your head then there is no "law" to judge anyone else logical or illogical.
And there are no absolutes...again then opinion is king...no law of contradiction because no absolute standard in which you judge something truth or non truth.
Logic is impossible if the world were what unbelievers say it is.
But its not the world they profess...its God's world...He made it, and He governs it day by day.
posted by Dale Callahan at 2:12 PM
10 Comments:
Gee Dale, you made an entire post about your inability to comprehend what you read. There is a big difference between a standard that has been accepted for thousands of years and a universal absolute. The standard may evolve, adapt, or even be proven incorrect. The universal absolute (i.e., your position) is never subject to evolution, adaptation or any correction.
Absolute standards are not required. Only generally accepted standards by which one can evaluate arguments. You do not subscribe to those standards - obviously because your world view is illogical, irrational and without any basis in fact. You have no argument to make regarding the validity of standards other than that they are "impossible" or that their lack of "universals" makes them wrong. Funny you don't make similar judgments in other aspects of your life - just when your religious worldview is under attack.
P.S. If God is governing the world day by day, God is really doing a crappy job of it. You should put in a complaint since you're on a first name basis with Him.
Here is my point.
Try thinking, speaking...debating without the use of universals.
When you erase the numeral 1 off the black board you don't destroy the concept of number 1 do you.
You don't think, talk or debate in mere particulars do you DL.
And you act like there are absolutes...you judge others by them.
The concept of the number 1 is generally accepted by all of humanity because it has been proven scientifically. You want to presuppose abstract "universal" concepts that have never been proven scientifically or otherwise and you argue that accepting unproven presuppositions is the only way to operate.
You however, do not operate that way in your everyday life. You fully expect that all the scientific principles will work today just like they have always worked - gravity will hold you to the ground, 1 + 1 will still equal 2, etc. Your argument is that everything is operated supernaturally by an apparently whimsical God so that you might walk out the door of your house today and float up to the roof, or put 1 apple beside another on the counter and have 3 apples.
Since you are not consistent in your application of your alleged universal absolutes, you demonstrate that you don't really believe these things, you just use them as arguing tools with unbelievers. Bad ones, I might add.
"If God is governing the world day by day, God is really doing a crappy job of it"
According to whom, DL? You? You have replied to Dale's indication that you are putting God on trial before by saying that you are not, but here you go again. Your house can be on fire, but you saying it isn't does not make you true.
So then, this judgement that you make on how God is governing the universe, day by day, causing the rain to fall on the good and the bad... A crappy job? Judged by you? What makes you right, DL? Where do you find the standards by which you make this judgement? And I ask this especially in light of your denial of universal laws and absolutes.
Proven scientifically...meaning what exactly.
How does one observe an idea or category...please explain.
Your argument against my beliefs are not being honest with my beliefs.
The Triune God is the only reason why I can know that the future is going to be like the past and therefore have an assurance and a foundation for the uniformity of nature, without which science would be impossible.
When God performs a miracle this presupposes that He usually works in the world in a different, orderly way.
The Bible doesn't teach God is whimsical...that is only your hatred speaking.
It is a real sign of your own positions weakness that you can't even argue against my view as it really is...instead you have to cheapen it so as to take jabs at it.
Do me a favor...Read David Humes argument against induction I would love to hear you refute him...and remember he is on your team...not mine...but he blows you out of the water so that if you are consistent with your beliefs you would have to become a skeptic.
You hold to millions of years of mutations in nature...so where is the order of things in your worldview?...if mutation is a part of your belief system then how do you know that things aren't going to change in the future...it sounds pretty whimsical to me.
My belief that the future is going to be like the past is in God's covenantal faithfulness.
And again please explain how one scientifically observes a universal...thats really funny.
Your assertion that "The Triune God is the only reason why I can know that the future is going to be like the past" is a baseless assertion. What possible connection could there be between a belief in your particular concept of God and the operation of the laws of physics? You then explain: "When God performs a miracle..." Your belief that God sometimes performs supernatural interventions on behalf of those who agree with you, one assumes, requires you to believe that the laws of physics are dependent on God. You HAVE to believe that God can and does suspend the laws of physics whenever he chooses.
The fact that there is no way to prove that any occurence is the result of "God's miracles" doesn't stop you. You don't require proof, you simply assert that God did it and that's adequate for you. I see why. Your whole belief system rests on the assertion that God intervenes in contravention of natural law whenever God sees fit.
Mutation is a part of evolutionary process. Life forms mutate and so do belief forms. The teachings of Jesus have apparently mutated into the hodgepodge of confused, illogical fantasy you espouse, but I rather doubt this mutation will evolve further. It is an evolutionary dead-end.
So with the fact of mutation how do you know that the future is going to be like the past?
You really didn't give me an answer.
I know you don't like my answers but at least I have an answer.
Mutation happened many times in the past and therefore is highly likely to occur in the future, just like gravity.
The difference is that I don't ascribe these natural laws to a God that decides when and whether to continue them. I don't find any evidence that the basic laws discovered and proven by science are subject to periodic suspension - whether by a diety or otherwise. Given that there's no evidence of a supernatural intervention in the past, there's no reason to believe there will be such an intervention in the future. It's the kind of lucid, clear, consistent thinking that we unbelievers are constantly repeating.
DL, just stop and think for a minute.
You make it seem like you have answered your problem by just saying that in your view the problem isn't because of a Personal Being making the changes [miracles].
You still have a problem.
Science is founded upon induction...the future is going to be like the past.
Your worldview has an impersonal force randomly at work with its own variation of miracle...the mutation.
The only difference which is really "the" difference is that according to your view there really is no constant since mutations are a part of the process. If life today is what it is because of evolution then mutations are a part of the norm and not something that stands against the norm.
If mutations could happen randomly at any moment then you really don't know the future is going to be like the past and all scientific procedure has no foundation.
In the Bible God isn't performing miracles every other day...and a miracle presupposes an orderly norm that the miracle is standing out against.
If God perform miracles every other minute then the miracle would no longer seem miraculous.
Do note that you philosophically
beg the very question brought to you.
I ask you to justify how you know the future is going to be like the past...in other words justify the uniformity of nature or induction...and you turn to probability [all the past futures were like the past/pasts "therefore" very likely...]
But you are assuming induction to even use probability...begging the question at hand.
Let's be clear. I think it highly likely that the future will be like the past because of the strong evidence that suggest it. Do I "know" it, like you "know" Jesus loves you or whatever?
No. And I don't need to. That's what makes it such a problem for you. You insist that everyone has to have a universal construct that solves all their problems, or else they are living a lie. I do not agree. I believe that any universal construct that is seen to solve all problems is itself a lie. No such construct or concept exists. Those who need one should look within themselves to discover why they cannot abide not knowing and why they have to invent an absolutist God concept.
Post a Comment
<< Home