j3frea
New Member
For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain!
Posts: 43
|
Post by j3frea on Jan 15, 2009 14:21:34 GMT -5
Perhaps I can explain what my brothers here are saying in a different way:
Suppose that x is the ultimate authority. What you are saying is then "Let us appeal to some truth higher than x to perform investigation".
Thus I (and I assume I speak not only for myself) believe in the God of the Bible to be the ultimate authority and that He has revealed Himself in part in His Word; the Bible.
Nothing you can appeal to can be higher than God and so either the highest "truth" will tell you "God is the ultimate authority" or anything else will result in folly because you are not consulting the highest truth.
Your position is flawed because you reject this authority and instead place yourself as the ultimate "truth detector". Consider this; on what basis do you think that you can come to derive any truth from your observations. You are committed to independence from God (you call yourself an atheist) but your independence is circular; you cannot justify it. I can justify my dependence on the God of Scripture because He has revealed Himself to me and saved me.
You probably wont really like this answer but the reason once again is your commitment to independence from the true God.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Jan 15, 2009 14:35:49 GMT -5
You probably wont really like this answer but the reason once again is your commitment to independence from the true God. Oh, no, it's a very well constructed argument. I like it. I might agree that I try to be as independant as possible. But doesn't that seem kinda logical? Or do I have to depend on Christianity to come into Christianity? If so, then there is no logical way to come into Christianity from the outside. It would be like claiming that you can gain knowledge by meditating, and offer up meditating as proof (as the claimer would believe that mediating would give you the knowledge that meditating gives you knowledge). That will be quite a problem yeah. But, how can we ever trust something to verify itself? That's an inherently flawed method. You can't use your calculator to check that your calculator is counting right. I'm left with the impression that there is no way to verify God as the highest authority, you simply have to take it in faith. But can you verify that belief past faith? Can you verify the Bible past faith? But we do not have a direct link to God; We do not know his mind or his being. In fact, even if we did, we would have no way to verify his mind to be truthful. The assuming I'm hearing here is that "There is nothing greater than God, so he must be the highest authority". But how do we know this? A very good argument. However, I wonder, how do you know that you are reading the scriptures correctly? What if your flawed eyes are making you read it wrong?
|
|
j3frea
New Member
For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain!
Posts: 43
|
Post by j3frea on Jan 18, 2009 16:17:11 GMT -5
Ultimately your arguments against my position are with regards to my reliance on faith.
You say:
Which touches a number of issues. As a Calvinist I believe that the Bible teaches "Total Depravity" which means that in and of yourself you will never come to God because you suppress your knowledge of Him and hate the thought of Him. In the same way, I - before I was a Christian - would never have come to Christ, however; God, by His grace, chose to regenerate me. Thus, God took the first step and is, as Hebrews says "the author and perfecter of [my] faith".
Therefore, since it is God at my foundation rather than human reason (which relies entirely on self-verification) I can trust Him and since He reveals Himself in His word, it would seem logical that He would cause me to read with understanding (Paul talks of this in 2 Corinthians if memory serves).
No presupposition can be substantiated but the only logical one would be one that rests on something outside of yourself that is objective - i.e. God and His Word. I could talk about historiography and the various sciences that are involved in verifying ancient literature and demonstrate the supreme accuracy and quality of record that we have in the Bible that no other ancient work shares. I could talk to you about the Lewis trilemma that have been formulated to prove the deity of Christ and various other "proofs" but ultimately your presupposition is that there is no God and so you will interpret everything with that worldview.
Therefore, all of your observations will be tainted by your interpretations. You see, at the end of your post, you did not answer the questions that arise from my statement because you can't justify your position - an ultimate presupposition must be circular. The only exception is if your foundation is outside of yourself. I can trust my foundation because He has revealed Himself to me when He regenerated me and saved me from the wrath that I deserved.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Jan 18, 2009 16:43:28 GMT -5
But doesn't that mean that ultimately, "spreading the good news" is futile?
Besides, God seems to have decided to delay my regeneration, and I can't find him myself because of my biased views. What now then? Should I just sit here and wait until something happens? D:
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Jan 19, 2009 3:04:27 GMT -5
Great Question!
Actually you overlook one important thing God has ordained the means in which men will be saved and that is the preaching of the "Gospel" (good news) to those who are perishing.
God is glorified in the preaching of the Gospel and sinners are reconciled to God by the preaching of the "Good News".
And this is where it pertains to you personally Drakim. All men everywhere are commanded to "repent and believe the Gospel"
You are commanded to repent knowing that you are a sinner in need of a Savior seeing your great wickedness before God.
We are to cry out to God have mercy on me "the" sinner...!
You see all men know God: There are only two types of people in this world those who confess Christ and those who supress Christ.
Biblically speaking there is no such thing as an Atheist!
You see Scripture declares that you will be without excuse come the day of judgement because you know God and yet you choose to reject Him.
The unregenerate God hater is to not just sit back but is to cry out to God that he may have mercy on the wicked soul.
You, Drakim, are to cry out while you still have breath or you, like many others, will sadly face an eternity in hell.
May God remember mercy in his wrath!
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Jan 20, 2009 8:14:26 GMT -5
Great Question! Actually you overlook one important thing God has ordained the means in which men will be saved and that is the preaching of the "Gospel" (good news) to those who are perishing. God is glorified in the preaching of the Gospel and sinners are reconciled to God by the preaching of the "Good News". And this is where it pertains to you personally Drakim. All men everywhere are commanded to "repent and believe the Gospel" I seem to lack the ability to believe in things by command. Let's do an experiment! Are you able to believe that there are trolls that lives on the backside of the moon, just for 10-20 seconds? I already tried and failed That's the problem, I don't know that. It's what you are saying, but you haven't convinced me anymore than Muslims have convinced me that there is no God but Allah, nor anymore than scientologists have convinced me that these alien spirits are clinging to my soul. Furthermore, claiming that I really know deep in my heart that you are correct and the other ones are wrong is kinda pointless. See, you may claim this, but I find myself unable to find such a truth in my heart (all I found was tons of blood actually). So I guess I'm blind to the fact that I can actually see. I guess I'm currently in the latter group. But you have to realize that I'm truly truly truly willing to change my position. I might sound sure and firm in my arguing, but the minute the scale tips in the favor of another world view than mine, I will jump the fence. I am 100% for the truth, no matter what, how or why. Seems that the Bible and me have some disagreements then. The scriptures does not speak to me. Your arguing is much more worthwhile, as I will carefully consider your arguments. For scripture, I've read it all before, and it didn't convince me. I don't really hate God anymore than I hate Goblins. I just find speaking to the air (because that's all I believe is above us right now, unless you go out into space) is futile. I realize many Christians thinks atheists have issues with being too proud to accept God, but I can reassure you that I have no calms over accepting things if it's actually shown to me (and not asked to be accepted on faith that I do not possess) Again with the burning lake of fire. I don't even see why God would make such a place. Why not just let the non-believers fade into nothingness? Why put effort into creating an underground place of eternal fire and torture? But he is ultimately just, is he not? You can't be 100% just and at the same time show mercy. Showing mercy is more like being kind when kindness is not deserved, right?
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Jan 21, 2009 0:33:16 GMT -5
My friend I am preparing to preach on a campus tomorrow so we will have to wait for the discussion. I am very intrigued by your questions though.
I'll respond in a day or two!
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Dozier on Feb 3, 2009 1:04:41 GMT -5
God by definition must be eternal. One is either the Creator or a creature. What makes God the Ultimate authority is all His attributes and who He is our Creator. Thus God defines and sets the standards not us. We are not autonomous so we do not make the criteria or prerequisites God does. Those that try to think independently make themselves the ultimate authority not God setting the conditions and prerequisites for what is acceptable as evidence concerning God and His revealed Word. This independent thinking is a factor in the non-Christians rejection of Christ. However, by what justification does the non-Christian have for thinking independently making themselves the ultimate authority? The answer must be circular in nature distinctly different from circular reasoning the Christian commits.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Feb 3, 2009 2:41:23 GMT -5
God by definition must be eternal. One is either the Creator or a creature. What makes God the Ultimate authority is all His attributes and who He is our Creator. Thus God defines and sets the standards not us. We are not autonomous so we do not make the criteria or prerequisites God does. Those that try to think independently make themselves the ultimate authority not God setting the conditions and prerequisites for what is acceptable as evidence concerning God and His revealed Word. This independent thinking is a factor in the non-Christians rejection of Christ. However, by what justification does the non-Christian have for thinking independently making themselves the ultimate authority? The answer must be circular in nature distinctly different from circular reasoning the Christian commits. Wait what? Are you saying that Christians are using circular reasoning but it's okay? Why do you think that circular reasoning is justified in your case? (and by the way, I don't think anybody are actually arguing that they are the final authority instead of God. I was simply using the argument for showing the circular reasoning that existed)
|
|
|
Post by reformeddogmatist on Apr 1, 2009 22:56:43 GMT -5
Drakim,
Christians do not operate off a none-christian epistemology (at least they are not supposed to), thus "God" will be defined by the Christian's epistemology which is Scripture. Ryan Dozier defined the God of the Bible as: "eternally self existent, sovereign, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, self-sufficient, personal, Triune, morally self-consistent with His attributes: Goodness, justice, Holiness, love, mercy. God is the creator of all things and definer of all things. All things derive from God and are defined by God. God providentially sustains all things.
If you want Scripture proofs, you can look refer to the Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 4-6 or the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 2. Therefore, those things that you consider not to be "requirements to be a God" are in fact the things that make God who he is.
There is much talk about "you just assume this" or "you assume that". Every philosophy has its presuppositions or axioms. There are essentially four different views of philosophy: Empircism, Rationalism, Dogmatism, and Irrationalism (Irrationalism is not strictly speaking not a philosophy but there is a common strain among irrationalist).
Empiricism is the view that all knowledge comes from sensation. Rationalism is the view that all knowledge comes from logic alone Dogmatism is the view that knowledge comes from the Scripture alone (at least Christian dogmatism). Irrationalism is the view that rejects logic and makes knowledge impossible. Note: there have been men in history that have blended some their epistemology with both Empiricism and Dogmatism various combination. I will not be considering this at present.
If I have understood you correctly from other posts of yours, you would actually fall under the last category since you are a self-professing skeptic. Skepticism is the position that nothing can be demonstrated, yet, if something can be demonstrated from skepticism it is its own falsity. Skeptism asserts nothing can be known and truth is impossible. But is it true that truth is impossible? If no proposition is true, than at least one proposition is true - the proposition, namely, that no proposition is true. If truth is impossible, therefore, it follows that we already have attained the truth.
As far as epistemology is concerned, there is a procedure one can use. In the words of Gordon Clark, "If it can be that a proposed system of philosophy - Aristotelianism or Spinozism for example - or if it can be shown that a particular proposition, whether it be a first principle or a subsidiary side issue, implies that knowledge is impossible, then that proposition or system may be eliminated from further consideration".
Skepticism is eliminated because it refutes itself; it is internally inconsistent. If Skepticism is true, it is false. Thus, skepticism falls under the category of Irrationalism and is eliminated from consideration.
Christians do not just assume that "God is the ultimate authority". Our axiom is the Scripture and the Scriptures declare God to be the authority. They declare his nature. They tell us of man and his nature and of sundry different things; this is knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Dozier on Apr 2, 2009 1:38:53 GMT -5
ReformedDogmatist
I am still undecided it between Clark and Van Til, but great post.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Apr 2, 2009 5:24:17 GMT -5
Drakim, Christians do not operate off a none-christian epistemology (at least they are not supposed to), That's fine, but then you must realize that Christians trying to argue with non-believers is useless then, since you are unable to argue outside of your already established opinion. It's all fine and danny that you operate on several assumptions, but then you must understand that any argument you pose against me is nothing but thin air. I don't really want proof, I want debate and discussion. I want to bring up ideas and points and get criticizes, and criticize other ideas and points myself. (which is what I think this forum is for). If I was simply looking for a Christian telling me that X is proof and that if I reject X it's because I'm influenced by the devil, then I would just google. But such presuppositions must be justified in some way. I mean, otherwise, what prevents me from saying: "Assume that I'm right about everything. God doesn't exist." Whoa, I just proved that God doesn't exist!...or not really. If we want to have a rational debate or argument, we must obviously find common ground first. Assumptions that only one part agrees with just doesn't cut it. No it's not. you are just making a straw man here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkepticismI fall under the philosophy b) section. Skepticism: A method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing. Only if you redefine Skepticism to be something entirely diffrent than what it's normally used for. I can do that too: Christianity is the belief that God both exists and doesn't exist. This violates the law of non-contraction. Thus, Christianity refutes itself. Easy, isn't it? It is presumed knowledge, and it won't work for anybody but Christians. It's not a platform you can use when talking with non-Christians. Imagine if you were going to talk to a Muslim about something, and his basic presumtion is that the Quran is true and starts arguing from that standpoint. It would be a fruitless talk, as he is blocking you out.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddogmatist on Apr 2, 2009 22:18:28 GMT -5
Drakim,
You wrote:
"That's fine, but then you must realize that Christians trying to argue with non-believers is useless then, since you are unable to argue outside of your already established opinion.
It's all fine and danny that you operate on several assumptions, but then you must understand that any argument you pose against me is nothing but thin air."
Yes, I understand this. You cannot receive or believe Christianity unless the Holy Spirit quickens your dead spirit. Your presuppositions (yes, you have them) are antithetical to Christianity and to knowledge. You must be born again.
You wrote:
"I don't really want proof, I want debate and discussion. I want to bring up ideas and points and get criticizes, and criticize other ideas and points myself. (which is what I think this forum is for).
If I was simply looking for a Christian telling me that X is proof and that if I reject X it's because I'm influenced by the devil, then I would just google."
Debate about what? If you will not even deal with the axioms of philosophy, I wonder greatly what matter you will discuss. You made the assertion that "God" could still be "God" apart from omnipotence because some pagans think that this is possible or because their worldview or epistemology allows for it. Well sir, I tell you again, philosophy must begin somewhere and that is with axioms or presuppositions. The pagan's presuppositions will allow for a finite god, but Christianity's does not because Christianity's is based on the teachings of Scripture and the Scriptures describe God as omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.
Define proof or evidence (really, they are synonymous). An "evidence" will differ depending on ones epistemology. Really, I do not mean to belabor the point. If one is an Empiricist, what he calls "evidence" will be quite rejected by the Rationalist and the Dogmatist because they do not view sensation as reliable.
You wrote:
"But such presuppositions must be justified in some way." Wrong. If you "justify them" your axioms, those things that you justified them with would be your axioms and the ones that are attempted to be justified by would not be axioms at all.
You wrote:
"I mean, otherwise, what prevents me from saying: "Assume that I'm right about everything. God doesn't exist." Whoa, I just proved that God doesn't exist!...or not really. If we want to have a rational debate or argument, we must obviously find common ground first. Assumptions that only one part agrees with just doesn't cut it.
No one is preventing you from saying it, I don't think. No, an axiom is not a proof. A proof is something demonstrated from the axiom. Really, all that would be is a tautology given your presuppositions. I mentioned before about "evidence" being accepted as such depending on one's epistemology, well, you may hate to hear this, but such is the same with the word "rational" and this can be seen in the course of philosophical discussion throughout the centuries: An Empiricist certainly thinks himself to be rational. He believe sensation alone gives him knowledge, and indeed, he believes knowledge is impossible without presupposing the reliability of the senses, thus, every system of philosophy that is anti-empirical is viewed of as "irrational" to the Empiricist. For the Dogmatist as well as for the Rationalist, the word "rational" will differ given their epistemological positions. So, yes, you may use the term, but define it. It means nothing to me at this point because the only thing I view as "rational" are the teachings of Scripture. So, what do you mean by the term?
Sir, I do not think we have common ground, though, that will not prevent discussion since argumentation may be done in a ad hominem sort of way (not abusive ad hominem. There is quite a difference).
You wrote:
"No it's not. you are just making a straw man here. Skepticism: A method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing."
I do not believe I have constructed a straw man. A method of doubt and testing based on what criteria? Can there be true propositions? If there can be, can you know if you have obtained it? How much knowledge have you obtained through your skepticism? How do you know that your assertion, "there is no God" is substantiated? Do you have the necessary amount of knowledge to make this assertion? How do you know?
You wrote:
"Only if you redefine Skepticism to be something entirely diffrent than what it's normally used for. I can do that too: Christianity is the belief that God both exists and doesn't exist. This violates the law of non-contraction. Thus, Christianity refutes itself. Easy, isn't it?"
I would suggest you read the entire article you linked to. Perhaps what I am doing is using skepticisms own principles to deduce that their belief is that no proposition can be viewed as true. Read the part about the Greek skeptics. The difference then between what you just wrote and what I said of skepticism is yours does not find itself in the teachings of Christians whereas my critique of skepticism is found in their teachings.
You wrote:
"It is presumed knowledge, and it won't work for anybody but Christians. It's not a platform you can use when talking with non-Christians. Imagine if you were going to talk to a Muslim about something, and his basic presumtion is that the Quran is true and starts arguing from that standpoint. It would be a fruitless talk, as he is blocking you out. "
This is true, although the scenario is not limited to Christians and Muslims. It is indeed fruitless talk unless the Holy Spirit makes that unbelieving Muslim believe the propositions of Scripture. The Gospel provides the information that is necessary for a man to be saved, but apart from the Spirit it is indeed a fruitless discussion. There are some things we could discuss, however, though that would only take place in a ad hominem sort of discussion.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Apr 3, 2009 1:30:54 GMT -5
If we are going to establish that any talk is fruitless and useless, then why did you bother coming here in the first place to the debate section?
I mean, did you just come here to say that we can't talk? :s
|
|
|
Post by reformeddogmatist on Apr 3, 2009 23:06:01 GMT -5
You did not answer any of my questions or points.
|
|