The fool says in his heart there is no God

[FadingSoul]

@Logo

@FadingSoul

Let’s stop the whole universe because so and so just finished his philosophy class so now he is armed with the unlimited knowledge of the world and has declared God is fake.

This mindless taunting does nothing for the debate. It only adds weight to the stereotype that fundamentalists are arrogant dogmatists who can’t argue their point and resort to intellectual bullying. You don’t want that label now do you? It sure is a poor example of Christ’s humility.

And for the record, I have a degree in philosophy. I’m not armed with anything, and I haven’t declared anything about God; I just happen to know a thing or two about philosophy, and I like discussing it in the context of civil debate.

while these people of various religions affirm that there is infact a God and they serve it, they do not proclaim with pure arrogance that God exists without a doubt

I’m glad you don’t do this, but Bahnsen does. That was his main thesis in his debate with R.C. Sproul over apologetic methodology: presuppositionalism leads to certainty, while evidentialism leads only to probability.

People who follow religion instead have faith to believe in the unseen like anyone who believes in thw wind.

Well I certainly hope you’re not comparing God with the wind here. It just so happens that we have very good methods for testing the presence of wind. You can feel it, you can measure its speed, you explain it in terms of scientific laws. Can’t say the same about God.

That is why this board is a sham. The arrogance that secularists on this board have, to proclaim that anyone who follows a religion is below them is by far the biggest indicator of a bunch of closed minded thinkers far far beyond the realm of what any of them would accuse a religious person of being.

I think a reliable indicator of closed-mindedness is drawing sweeping generalizations–lumping all your opponents in one boat and then using a single standard to discredit them. Secular people are very diverse, FadingSoul, and to attack them as a monolithic group is highly disingenuous. I’m a secularist who does not consider religious people beneath me; in fact, I’ve written as much on this board. I think certain types of religious people (although certainly not all) are insecure in their faith, and feel the need to lash out at people who believe differently…just to make themselves feel more powerful. I have to say, you fit that stereotype quite well.

Philosopher - 1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment

This board seeks neither. What it seeks to do is impose a dogmatic secular overtone to every single person who dare speaks about his or her convictions when they deal with religion.

Again…this is a shameless generalization. You’re just treating the board as though it’s one big conspiracy to undermine your faith. There’s a diversity of opinions here, and if this offends you, then leave. (And really leave…don’t just say you will and keep coming back because you can’t bear to let us vile secularists have the final word.)

Religious people are always thinking

Wow. I think a truly thoughtful person would know not to make the sorts of generalizations you make. Thinking people argue their points, and have little need for the sorts of inane ad hominem attacks you constantly launch against those with differing opinions.

But what is even more ironic is that at the current stage in human existence it is impossible for any philosopher to be secular yet most on this board claim to be philosophers. How can any one of you who is secular claim to have the slightest grasp of philosophy when to deny the possability of the existence of God is to deny the basic beliefs of philosophy itself.

Now this is a claim you have to defend. I’m interested to see how well you can argue the presuppositionalist position on this…mostly because I used to argue it very vigorously myself. Have you heard any of Bahnsen’s debates? There is a very clever methodology to his trancendental argument for God’s existence (TAG). He, unlike you, understood that you can’t just make these claims; you have to argue for them. Of course, there are many problems with TAG, and I won’t hesitate to point them out. But to say that a belief in God is necessary in order to do philosophy is a very big claim–one you shouldn’t make unless you’re confident you can back it up.

Ok this is getting old fast. What I want to know is how you can have my EXACT QUOTE right above your response and STILL MANAGE TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Show me where in this reponse I said you have to believe in God to be a philosopher. According to the following response I gave you claim I said that.

“But what is even more ironic is that at the current stage in human existence it is impossible for any philosopher to be secular yet most on this board claim to be philosophers. How can any one of you who is secular claim to have the slightest grasp of philosophy when to deny the possability of the existence of God is to deny the basic beliefs of philosophy itself”

I said you cannot be a secularist and a philosopher. I never said you had to believe in God. At the very least a philosopher must be agnostic, willing to admit that because they lack all the knowledge of the universe that there is the possability of a God existing. Nowhere did I say you had to believe in God to be a philosopher. I do not understand how you can quote me and right below my quote completely change what I said above. Is it really that hard to say what I said when refering to what I said instead of saying whatever you want and ignoring everything I just said?

And from my experience on this board, yeah I am lumping the whole board together, because you know what? There isn’t a single religious threat running through this entire forum that isn’t filled with insults or attacks against a particular religion with a nice overtone of spite.

This forum has probably run off more religious people than 95% of all the forums on the web. It’s no wonder there are hardly any people visiting this site, the fact that hardly anyone goes here speaks for itself. The secularists have mocked and constantly attacked all religious beliefs on this board to the point where there is probably 1 religious person for every 15 secularists. And that would be perfectly fine if this was just a current events site. But this is a philosophy site, and the tunnel vision of MOST of the secularists I’ve seen on this board is unbelievable.

If this site is so balanced and truely a place for all free thinking people to get together and discuss things then why is every subject dealing with religion attacking it in some way shape or form? I’ve found more harmony and civility and kindness amongst the differing viewpoints of regular people on a New York Giants current events message board! Maybe it’s just me or maybe it’s because those people don’t act like they have every answer to every question humanity has ever asked.

[Logo]

I don’t see why you continue to get all bent out of shape over such incredibly minor points. A secularist is one who doesn’t have any need for religion…not necessarily an avowed atheist. I happen to consider myself an agnostic.

[Logo]

And Bahnsen does, by the way, claim that philosophy is impossible apart from Christian presuppositions.

[Matthew_E]

Fadingsoul wrote,

I said you cannot be a secularist and a philosopher. I never said you had to believe in God. At the very least a philosopher must be agnostic, willing to admit that because they lack all the knowledge of the universe that there is the possability of a God existing.

Ultimately, isn’t everyone agnostic Fadingsoul? I’ve found the problem lies with the fact that not everyone admits it. When someone claims to be an atheist, I view them as someone that simply finds it extremely unlikely that there is a God. The same goes for the devoutest of believers; they simply find it highly probable there is a God.

Whether or not someone is willing to admit their agnosticism is not necessarily exclusive from whether or not they are a philosopher. Afterall, they could be right. Granted, I find myself often perturbed by the preaching of religious folk, and would find it hard to call them philosophers. Just as hard I imagine, as you find it to call an atheist a philosopher. I would say these people are in search of knowledge (which is the defintion you gave for a philospoher), they just happen to believe they found it. I’m not sure if that should mandate the relinquishmnet of such an illustrious title.

Perhaps much irritation and heartache would be avoided if the terms were used as adjectives, as opposed to the noun forms which denote some kind of certainty, a certainty which should not be prevalent. I consider myself atheistic- one leaning toward the idea that there is no God. Claiming that I’m an agnostic just doesn’t feel right, as it doesn’t include which end of the spectrum I tend to agree with.

Logo wrote:

I think a reliable indicator of closed-mindedness is drawing sweeping generalizations–lumping all your opponents in one boat and then using a single standard to discredit them. Secular people are very diverse, FadingSoul, and to attack them as a monolithic group is highly disingenuous. I’m a secularist who does not consider religious people beneath me; in fact, I’ve written as much on this board. I think certain types of religious people (although certainly not all) are insecure in their faith, and feel the need to lash out at people who believe differently…just to make themselves feel more powerful. I have to say, you fit that stereotype quite well.

Well said.

Also, I’m curious about the presuppositionalist position (specifically TAG). I’m going to do a search for it on the web, but perhaps we could discuss it if you’re interested.

::edited:: as I incorrectly spelled philosopher about 7 times.

[unFaith]

I think the reason we have everyone getting bent out of shape is because the start of this post begins with Fadingsoul providing information in which atheists are described as “fools”.

lol I think a topic like that is sure to get some people’s tempers flaring.

I’m starting to think that philosophers of oposing ideas about religion and atheism should never talk of the subject. It just doesn’t work. Neither of us can prove anything, so we just ramble on and on about it and each has its own argument against the other over and over again.

If we are to discuss religion, discuss with the religous.

If you want to discuss possibilities of no religion, find an atheist.

It will just make it so much easier for us, because quite frankly, how will we ever improve our knowledge through this pointless bickering?

and fadingsoul, evolution is something I believe in.

[FadingSoul]

@unFaith

I think the reason we have everyone getting bent out of shape is because the start of this post begins with Fadingsoul providing information in which atheists are described as “fools”.

lol I think a topic like that is sure to get some people’s tempers flaring.

I’m starting to think that philosophers of oposing ideas about religion and atheism should never talk of the subject. It just doesn’t work. Neither of us can prove anything, so we just ramble on and on about it and each has its own argument against the other over and over again.

If we are to discuss religion, discuss with the religous.

If you want to discuss possibilities of no religion, find an atheist.

It will just make it so much easier for us, because quite frankly, how will we ever improve our knowledge through this pointless bickering?

and fadingsoul, evolution is something I believe in.

Ok. As my sig says, “The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance.”- T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

Just one of the many major problems with evolution.

The Big Bang violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as does most of evolution. For those of you who say this is a misconception I have lined up the quotes of about 12 distinguished evolutionists stating that this is a problem with evolution.

Perhaps the most daming evidence again evolution are the mathematical probabilities required for it to take place. It far exceeds the 1 in 10 to the 50th power equasion mathematicians have given this world as the final number which when exceeded the chance that something could happen drops to 0.

Then their are the biological problems such as enzymes and proteins and the human eyeball amongst other things which evoution could not have formed.

Then there are creatues on earth which defy evolution.

Bombardier Beetle – This lowly creature defends itself in a very interesting manner; its body has two sacks of chemicals that explode when added together, but are benign when kept separately. Thus, the first capability is that this beetle has two separate sacks that keep the chemicals separate until the beetle needs the chemical to protect itself.

The second capability is that the beetle has an asbestos type lining in his “firebox” in which the chemicals are added. This “firebox” lining keeps the chemical explosion from destroying the body of the beetle when it explodes outward.

However, a third capability is needed to keep the explosion that occurs right outside the body of the beetle from blowing the beetle away when the stream of explosive chemical erupts out of the body. If the stream were continuous, the beetle would be blown away from the chemical coming out its body; however, the beetle pulsates his stream in tiny, continuous droplet pulsation. Thus, the stream of explosive material is not continuous, so the beetle is not killed by his own protective mechanism!

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in this beetle.

Thus, the Bombardier Beetle by itself utterly disproves Evolution.

Giraffe – this “lowly” animal also contains three unique, cooperating capabilities.

Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.

However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.

However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, God has built a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.

The Giraffe also by itself utterly disproves Evolution.

There is so much more. I just do not understand how you can believe in evolution when so many parts of it so completely violate natural law, the law of probability, and our understanding of biology.

[unFaith]

You really haven’t proved a thing in my book.

Why is it not possible for these animals, such as the giraffe to evolve into these complex animals over millions and millions of years from something much more simple? Mutations can bring alot of change to an animal, and cross breeding etc. all contribute to change.

I myself have a bone defect that differs me from others, it happens sporatically. Mine is on my sternum, and maybe this will be passed down to my children. Who knows.

There is so much to consider, and to simply shut it down like it is impossible when, if you really think about it, there is a possibility and it should have a right to be explored upon, not dismissed as false.

At least we can continue to study this, unlike other beliefs, and then we shall determine if it is impossible.

For now, it sounds much better than other things I have heard, so I’m sticking with it.

ps. I’d like to add, that even if I believed in God, I would still believe evolution takes place. I’m not replacing god with evolution, I just believe evolution does in fact occur. Why wouldn’t animals develope themselves and adapt?

[SideShowBob]

The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.

I believe in god and evolution. Evolution does not support atheism , it supports the existence of god, or God to you. There can be no conflict between god and science. If there is a conflict then somewhere there has been a misinterpretation.

The Big Bang violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as does most of evolution.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says a few things. A system operating in a cycle cannot produce a positive heat flow from a colder body to a hotter body. I assume your referring to entropy. The entropy (or disorder) of the Universe today is much higher then it was at the Big Bang. Even with the forming of complex systems like stars and galaxies and life on earth. Entropy is higher today then it was yesterday and it will be higher tomorrow then it is today. When winter comes around, take a glass of water and set it outside your front door at night. When the heat escapes the water, guess what happens. The molecules begin arranging themselves into perfect geometric shapes called ice crystals. The molecules go from low order to high order but the system as a hole increases in entropy because heat went from the warm system to the cold system.

Perhaps the most daming evidence again evolution are the mathematical probabilities required for it to take place. It far exceeds the 1 in 10 to the 50th power equasion mathematicians have given this world as the final number which when exceeded the chance that something could happen drops to 0

If something has a 1 in 10 to the 50th probability of occurring and you give a system 1 in 10 to the 50th chances to achieve the desired outcome, then it is a likely probability that the outcome will occur. The key is that this type of event requires random chance and randomness is incompatible with cause and effect. So it demonstrates that something in addition to cause and effect is at play in the Universe (will/consciousness).

You are right that this sight is overrun with atheist and I wish more people who believed in god or God would contribute but your fundamentalist dogma is really annoying. The bible is written in a way which doesn’t simply allow for interpretation, it is written in a way which demands interpretation! This is because what the bible is trying to say can not be spoken. The reader must interpret it in ways which speaks most directly to him. Fundamentalist seek to deny people this right.

P.S.

logo great posts!

[An_Imaginary_Man]

i wouldn’t say evolution supports the existence of God… the idea of evolution seems to be fairly consistent with both theistic and atheistic worlds

[SideShowBob]

We’ll have to save that debate for another thread.

[ben]

Hi FadingSoul,

Here a some short snippets from your posts about these forums.

This forum has probably run off more religious people than 95% of all the forums on the web. It’s no wonder there are hardly any people visiting this site, the fact that hardly anyone goes here speaks for itself. The secularists have mocked and constantly attacked all religious beliefs on this board to the point where there is probably 1 religious person for every 15 secularists. And that would be perfectly fine if this was just a current events site. But this is a philosophy site, and the tunnel vision of MOST of the secularists I’ve seen on this board is unbelievable.

…

If this site is so balanced and truely a place for all free thinking people to get together and discuss things then why is every subject dealing with religion attacking it in some way shape or form? I’ve found more harmony and civility and kindness amongst the differing viewpoints of regular people on a New York Giants current events message board! Maybe it’s just me or maybe it’s because those people don’t act like they have every answer to every question humanity has ever asked.

…

That is why this board is a sham. The arrogance that secularists on this board have, to proclaim that anyone who follows a religion is below them is by far the biggest indicator of a bunch of closed minded thinkers far far beyond the realm of what any of them would accuse a religious person of being.

…

This board seeks neither. What it seeks to do is impose a dogmatic secular overtone to every single person who dare speaks about his or her convictions when they deal with religion. Traditional religions on this board are shunned as primitive and worthless. But what is even more ironic is that at the current stage in human existence it is impossible for any philosopher to be secular yet most on this board claim to be philosophers. How can any one of you who is secular claim to have the slightest grasp of philosophy when to deny the possability of the existence of God is to deny the basic beliefs of philosophy itself. To keep your mind open to search for wisdom and enlightenment.

…

I am leaving this board now as it is clear that being here is pointless. Free thought does not exist here, the majority of so called philosophers can be described in 2 words. Arrogant secularists. The only exchange of ideas occur through the forceful beliefs of the arrogant majority on this board which renders discussing any subject relating to spirituality or religion pointless.

No doubt you will just brand this as another attempt of the “dogmatic secularists” trying to “drive off 95% of this board” with their “closed-mindedness” but I assure you my contempt for you has nothing to do with your faith, but rather with your prejudice, your arrogance and your ungratefulness.

I would perhaps be more sympathetic with you if you had paid a fee to sign up to this website and you were unhappy with the service. However, this is not the case. You are provided with this forum, free of charge and you may join and leave at your discretion whenever you want, 24 hours a day. Many people have found it difficult to find a place here and they have sometimes stuck it out and sometimes they have left. This is fine, we can’t cater for everyone and neither do we claim to.

But what disgusting behaviour it is to come on here and accuse “the board” and everyone on it of being “dogmatic secularists”, to make false assumptions about how many or how few people come here and claim it is because “the board” has some sort of agenda. No-one forces you to come here and no-one made you pay to sign up. If you have a problem with the way things are discussed here, there are plenty of other boards around. They are even advertised freely in Mundane Babble!

I’ve said this to many people in the past. Whether you are right or wrong, this is not a democracy and the way this board is run is decided by myself and my staff. If you don’t like it, please vacate the area. Don’t waste our time by saying how horrible we all are and how we need to open our minds to your values and beliefs. Losing your temper and threatening to leave just because people disagree with you is not what we’re looking for here.

The choice is yours.

[The_Underground_Man]

Fadingsoul wrote:

The rebirth of Israel. Foretold for almost 1000 years after the destruction of the nation, it came true in 1948.

Among many of your misconstrued arguments I must protest this claim. The phophesy is for the Jews to return to Israel with the Messiah. The current secular state of Israel is not a fullfilment of the prophesy.

You also wrote:

It’s so shakey that, it’s the only ancient book to mention the world was round over a thousand years before science figured it out.

This isn’t true. In fact I can even get you quotes from the Talmud and Torah that show that they thought of the world as flat not round. Proof of this is where in one part of the Torah somone speaks of the 4 winds of the earth orginating from it’s four corners.

There will be peace in the Middle East. For 7 years a false peace will exist in the Middle East. And the ancient Temple Mount known as Solomon’s Temple will be rebuilt. Currently the Dome of the Roc, Islam’s third most holiest site sits on the exact spot, the one and only spot that the Temple Mount can be rebuilt on. The rebuilding of this Temple Mount will signal the covenant between the Jews and the anti-Christ for 7 years.

This was simply the funniest thing I’ve read in a while. So Israel will destroy the Dome of the Rock and Build Solomons Temple and this will create a 7 year pseudo-peace?? Yes The Arab world would make peace with Israel the minute they destory one of there most sacred sites and build on top of it a Jewish Temple hahaha. But then again us Jewish devils will be pretty powerful following our Anti-Christ that we’ve somehow mistaken for our long awaited king hahahah. The funniest yet at the same time scariest thing is that I know you actualy believe this.

[Logo]

For the record, there is a verse in the Bible that talks about “the circle of the Earth” (in Psalms somewhere I think). But where a circle is round, it is also flat.

[FadingSoul]

@Logo

For the record, there is a verse in the Bible that talks about “the circle of the Earth” (in Psalms somewhere I think). But where a circle is round, it is also flat.

Actually it’s in Isaiah and the reason why it says circle and not sphere is that the word sphere did not exist in Hebrew. Infact scholars have already proven very easily that circle could be used to describe 3D.

[The_Underground_Man]

I must correct myself I found the quote I was reffering to and its part of the New Testiment not the Old. My apologies.

Revelation 7:1 “And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.”

Sorry about that my mistake. Though I’v heard hearsay that in the Talmud there are reffrences that reflect the Ancients saw the world as flat but I cannot account for the veracity of these claims.

[FadingSoul]

“Among many of your misconstrued arguments I must protest this claim. The phophesy is for the Jews to return to Israel with the Messiah. The current secular state of Israel is not a fullfilment of the prophesy.”

Well this proves you wrong. Try again.

“Therefore say: Thus says the Lord GOD: I will gather you from
the peoples, and assemble you out of the countries where you
have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.”
(Ezekiel 11:17)

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God:
It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act,
but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned
among the nations from which you came…I will take you from
the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring
you into your own land.” (Ez 36:22, 24)

“Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when
it shall no longer be said, “As the Lord Lives who brought the
people of Israel up out of the land of Egypt,” but “As the Lord
lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the
north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.” For
I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their
ancestors.” (Jer 16:14-15)

"This isn’t true. In fact I can even get you quotes from the Talmud and Torah that show that they thought of the world as flat not round. Proof of this is where in one part of the Torah somone speaks of the 4 winds of the earth orginating from it’s four corners. "

The four corners arguement holds up only amongst the ignorant. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the world is flat. The four corners description is simply used as a metaphor for a complete covering of the world during rapture.

Isaiah 40:20. He that [is] so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree [that] will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, [that] shall not be moved. 21. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22. [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

“This was simply the funniest thing I’ve read in a while. So Israel will destroy the Dome of the Rock and Build Solomons Temple and this will create a 7 year pseudo-peace?? Yes The Arab world would make peace with Israel the minute they destory one of there most sacred sites and build on top of it a Jewish Temple hahaha. But then again us Jewish devils will be pretty powerful following our Anti-Christ that we’ve somehow mistaken for our long awaited king hahahah. The funniest yet at the same time scariest thing is that I know you actualy believe this.”

Well since you are so completely ill informed, I think you should just stop talking before you make yourself out to look even more foolish. It’s completely obvious that you haven’t got a clue as to what you are talking about and are just on this thread to try to attack what I said without the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Ever heard of the Wailing wall? It’s the last part of the Temple to still be standing. And when the anti-christ comes he will broker a deal with the muslims to allow the Temple to be built around the Dome of the Roc. It’s much larger.

[Logo]

@FadingSoul

since you are so completely ill informed, I think you should just stop talking before you make yourself out to look even more foolish. It’s completely obvious that you haven’t got a clue as to what you are talking about and are just on this thread to try to attack what I said without the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Rambling ad hominems like these, devoid of substantive content, serve no purpose. They don’t strengthen your position; in fact they weaken your (already tenuous) credibility. FadingSoul, don’t you think it’s ironic that you’re decrying the incivility of this board, and yet you are by far the most belligerant of the contributors to this thread? If you want your views to be taken seriously, I suggest you start by remedying this hypocrisy.

Actually it’s in Isaiah and the reason why it says circle and not sphere is that the word sphere did not exist in Hebrew. Infact scholars have already proven very easily that circle could be used to describe 3D.

“Scholars” is a very nebulous term…referring to an incredibly broad group of people. On this issue, as with many issues, “scholars” in no way agree. And by that I mean, many who get paid to study ancient Hebrew texts don’t think the author of Isaiah actually believed the Earth was spherical. I looked this up, and the NAS actually translates the word “vault”–giving the connotation of a dome-shaped structure with a flat bottom. Since that image corresponds to other ancient conceptions of the world, I see no reason to assume that this verse is saying the earth was a sphere.

But I think you should be much more careful about your use of the word “prove.” In Bible scholarship (in any literary scholarship in fact) it is very difficult to prove things with absolute certainty. A more nuanced vocabulary would help you here.

[Logo]

@Matthew E.

Also, I’m curious about the presuppositionalist position (specifically TAG). I’m going to do a search for it on the web, but perhaps we could discuss it if you’re interested.

If you’re familiar with holistic theories of knowledge, such as those propounded by Quine and Kuhn, you’ll recognize the presuppositionalist approach right away.

In “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Quine writes, “any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system” of beliefs (Christian apologists gratuitiously use the term “worldview” instead of “system”).

Apologists like Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til basically hijacked this theory of knowledge and took Quine to mean that it is rational to believe any theory in the face of any evidence–so long as your overall worldview coheres (of course, the idea that Christian fundamentalism is even coherent is highly questionable). One of the fundamental dogmas Bahnsen asserts is that Christian fundamentalism is the only worldview that ultimately makes sense. All other systems ultimately collapse under the weight of their own inherent contradictions. This is not a conclusion reached after a long process of philosophic argumentation; Bahsen calls it an a priori presuppositon.

This is why presuppositionalism is pseudo-philosophy; it makes no bones about assuming the unbeliever to be wrong…even before considering his or her viewpoint. You can easily see why Creationists eat this stuff up…

Of course, there is a very clever method to Bahsen’s apologetic. He was an intelligent guy with a PhD in Philosophy, so he understood many of the foundational problems modern thought faced. And he used his powerful debating skills to manipulate those problems to his own advantage. I think his most insidious move was to paint the modern paradigm in such a way that the essential problems of epistemology and ethics only applied to secular thought; those who embraced Christian presuppositions basically had a logically airtight system. In debate, when the coherence of Christianity was genuinely called into question, Bahnsen would resort to ad hominems and other logical distractions (he was more eloquent and subtle than FadingSoul here, but it was done in the same spirit); and he was such a skilled debator that he often got away with this approach.

To someone unversed in philosophy (like myself), this comes off as very compelling stuff. It wasn’t until I actually studied Quine that I began to understand the problems with the presuppositional method. The fact is, Bahsen never examines the Christian worldview with anywhere near the scrutiny that he applies to the so-called “unbeliever” (and he, like FadingSoul, tends to lump non-Christians into one big category–often with the similar result of creating many straw men).

For instance, in a debate with Atheist promoter Gordon Stein, Bahnsen was faced with a fairly cogent presentation of the problem of evil. His answer to Stein was, “my answer to the problem of evil is, there is no problem of evil in an atheist universe.” Now Stein didn’t have anything near Bahnsen’s wit and eloquence, so he basically let him get away with this assertion; it took me a couple of YEARS to finally figure out what was wrong with it. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL ONLY EXISTS IN A THESTIC UNIVERSE. Duh! That’s what makes it a problem FOR THE THEIST.

This is a prime example of presuppositionalism’s cleverness: its ability to highlight the problems of modern philosophy while fooling us into thinking these are not also problems for Christianity. However, Bahnsen does do a remarkable job of summarizing the weaknesses of modern thought, and that is perhaps what makes his arguments so interesting.

[unFaith]

Outstanding posts Logo…

I’m finding it funny that secularists are supposedly all over these boards, but really I’ve only seen that it is normally just atheists, joined by agnostics alike whom are only defending themselves when the religious claim to know the truth and begin attempting to push this “truth” upon them.

I will not doubt there are some whom attack religion also or egg on this pointless arguing, but either way, this needs to end.

Let’s just stop attempting to convert eachother or prove eachother wrong. In my opinion, this is the worst part of philiosophy when we all begin to argue facts about our beliefs and doubts in the existence of God. It just doesn’t work.

Posts with topics that are very biased such as this one, which actually call people like me a “fool” just for not believing in god just don’t seem productive. At least ask a reasonable question that isn’t here just to promote your belief in god.

[FadingSoul]

@unFaith

Outstanding posts Logo…

I’m finding it funny that secularists are supposedly all over these boards, but really I’ve only seen that it is normally just atheists, joined by agnostics alike whom are only defending themselves when the religious claim to know the truth and begin attempting to push this “truth” upon them.

I will not doubt there are some whom attack religion also or egg on this pointless arguing, but either way, this needs to end.

Let’s just stop attempting to convert eachother or prove eachother wrong. In my opinion, this is the worst part of philiosophy when we all begin to argue facts about our beliefs and doubts in the existence of God. It just doesn’t work.

Posts with topics that are very biased such as this one, which actually call people like me a “fool” just for not believing in god just don’t seem productive. At least ask a reasonable question that isn’t here just to promote your belief in god.

This thread was started in response to me quietly lurking and reading all the absolute BS attacks against religious people taking place in this forum.

The only time religion is brought up in this forum from people who don’t believe is when they want to make some post to degenerate a particular religion when they have absolutely no proof to back anything. A good example of this is the “Was Jesus A Homosexual” thread. Serves no purpose but to egg on the few religious folk in this forum.