Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2018 8:44 PM
218 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, ICANT, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (5 members, 213 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,907 Year: 18,730/29,783 Month: 675/2,043 Week: 227/386 Day: 86/44 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   Presuppositionalism
Phat
Member
Posts: 11597
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 136 of 142 (826516)
01-03-2018 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by mike the wiz
01-03-2018 10:30 AM


Seeing How Others Think
Hi Mike. Happy New Year! Long Time No See. Allow me to publically share with you my morning.

1) Reading Facebook, I see one of my Christian friends promoting Ray Comforts movie, The Atheist Delusion I watch the first few minutes of it. Then, as I am prone to do, I search YouTube for critics of the movie. Hugo and Jake are movie critics and so I watched their critique.

Atheists Watch Ray Comfort's The Atheist Delusion....be forewarned...Hugo and Jake are brutally honest and somewhat intelligent, though they are crass and very human. They make fun of Jesus, Christianity, and specifically Ray Comfort, though there is truth in what they say. Its noteworthy that they start their rebuttal video drinking some shots. Everybody has to have something, after all.

Anyway, my point is not to take sides. As believers, we have chosen our belief, but in my opinion, God won't smite us for attempting to fully understand how others think. While it is true that some sre smug and arrogant this is true of all humans including many believers.

That's my 2 cents. Cheers, Mike.

Edited by Phat, : spelling


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2018 10:30 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19719
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 137 of 142 (826523)
01-03-2018 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Phat
01-03-2018 9:21 AM


Re: How Can An Orthodox Guy be a Con?
Easy, just as any believer of any sect can be a con -- why would he be any different?

... I figured that since this guy was an Orthodox Christian he was not a flim-flam man like the televangelists in America.

All that means is that he has opinions. Everyone has opinions, some good, some worthless, some downright wrong.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Phat, posted 01-03-2018 9:21 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Phat, posted 01-04-2018 8:30 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11597
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 138 of 142 (826547)
01-04-2018 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by RAZD
01-03-2018 2:05 PM


Re: How Can An Orthodox Guy be a Con?
RAZD writes:

Everyone has opinions, some good, some worthless, some downright wrong.

Good point. Our opinions and beliefs are shaped by our experience.

Perhaps my error was that I presupposed that he at least should be right.

Lets get back to presuppositionalism.

Wiki writes:

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.

Presuppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare their belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true.

Perhaps science is trustworthy because it attempts to limit or eliminate prior assumptions about anything. Comments?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2018 2:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2018 11:01 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 139 of 142 (826561)
01-04-2018 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by mike the wiz
01-03-2018 10:30 AM


The problem with this argument is that it presumes you have telepathy. Notice you assert (as hearsay) what the wishes are, of certain people, simply because you believe them to be. Such as, "what they are interested in".

My question to arrogant atheists is the same one I usually ask, where do you get this remarkable telepathic ability to know my motives?

No telepathy needed. All we need to do is to follow the evidence, which is abundant. We have the many statements by presuppositionalists of what their beliefs are. In addition, we have the presuppositional literature in which presuppositionalists take great efforts to explain what presuppositionalism is, albeit for the purpose of convincing others to become presuppositionalists.

In addition, we can also observe presuppositionalists at work, which has the added benefit of detecting where presuppositionalists are lying in their statements of what their beliefs are. An analogy to that would be young-earth creationists proclaiming belief in truth and that lying is a sin while at the same time lying their asses off in their claims.

Then we can analyze all that evidence to arrive at certain conclusions. None of those conclusions are based on telepathy nor have any need for telepathy, but rather they are all based on the abundant evidence that presuppositionalists have provided us.

If you have any evidence that the conclusions of that analysis are in error, then you need simply to present that evidence and explain how it shows the conclusions of that analysis to be in error.

It really is that simple. So why do you not do that instead of engaging in pure bullshirt?

BTW:

... where do you get this remarkable telepathic ability to know my motives?

Your motives? At what point did Dr Adequate ever make any statement about your own personal motives? Do please point us to the exact message and the exact wording.

Or if you are unable to do that, then please extend your sincerest apology to Dr Adequate for that accusation. After all, that would be the Christian thing to do.
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology and studied paleontology under Dr. Steven J. Gould. He was raised a Christian fundamentalist (a dangerous statement, since that sectarian sub-set has splintered greatly with each splinter chafing bitterly at being identified another splinter's name) and was a young-earth creationist before he ever egan his higher-education studies. I have the links stored away somewhere, but cannot find them at this moment. He gave an interview with Answers in Genesis years ago and that should still be on their site. He famously took a pair of scissors to his KJV bible and cut out every passage that he believed depended on YEC beliefs. What was left threatened to fall apart when you picked it up.

Dr. Wise is an unwavering YEC at the same time that he admits that all the evidence points to evolution being true. He also admonishes creationists for taking the evidential approach which is a losing position for them, but rather they should instead take the presuppositional approach which ignores all the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2018 10:30 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Phat, posted 01-04-2018 10:47 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11597
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 140 of 142 (826563)
01-04-2018 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by dwise1
01-04-2018 10:40 AM


Dr. Wise is an unwavering YEC at the same time that he admits that all the evidence points to evolution being true. He also admonishes creationists for taking the evidential approach which is a losing position for them, but rather they should instead take the presuppositional approach which ignores all the evidence.
Is that what he said? Perhaps that sheds a light on why our member Faith believes as she does. And Kurt Wise is no slouch. I wonder if deep down he denies reality or whether his own belief system has found a reason?

Of course, I wonder that about myself, as well. But enough about me.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by dwise1, posted 01-04-2018 10:40 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by dwise1, posted 01-04-2018 3:43 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14555
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


(2)
Message 141 of 142 (826565)
01-04-2018 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Phat
01-04-2018 8:30 AM


Re: How Can An Orthodox Guy be a Con?
quote:

Perhaps science is trustworthy because it attempts to limit or eliminate prior assumptions about anything

That’s pretty much a basic of any rational attempt to get at the truth. Assumptions can easily be wrong - if they had strong support from evidence or reasoning they wouldn’t be assumptions.

Presuppositionalists often claim that there can be no neutrality. If you don’t assume that God exists then you are assuming that God does not exist. The corollary of that is that God’s existence can’t be supported by evidence or rational argument. Though I doubt that they understand that. Past encounters with presuppositionalists show that they rely on assumptions and uncritically belief in what their idols tell them - but they don’t really understand what they are saying.

See an old discussion with a Presuppositionalist starting here Message 105


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Phat, posted 01-04-2018 8:30 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 142 of 142 (826593)
01-04-2018 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Phat
01-04-2018 10:47 AM


DWise1 writes:

Dr. Wise is an unwavering YEC at the same time that he admits that all the evidence points to evolution being true. He also admonishes creationists for taking the evidential approach which is a losing position for them, but rather they should instead take the presuppositional approach which ignores all the evidence.


Is that what he said?

We had talked about Dr. Kurt Wise in another topic (Message 81 -- lurkers should follow that message link, because that message contains extensive quotes of Dr. Wise and about him) and where I gave links to a 1995/1996 interview at Answers in Genesis (bio page starts at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/313.asp, article starts at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1318.asp).

The "which ignores all the evidence" is my own interpretation of what presuppositionalism does, but that interview does state (my emphasis added):

quote:
Among positive trends in creationism, Dr Wise sees the four-yearly International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh as extremely encouraging. He also regards the continual improvement of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal as exciting. He is pleased to see the trend towards a presuppositional approach to the presentation of creationism (as opposed to the 'evidential' approach).

I also know that he had stated that he is and remains a YEC because of his religious beliefs, even though he also acknowledges that the evidence strongly supports evolution; from Robert Schadewald's report on a presentation Dr. Wise ("The 1998 International Conference on Creationism", NCSE Reports, Vol 18 No 3, May/June 1998, pp 24-25):

quote:
[Wise] told the audience that evolution is a powerful theory, and that anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't understand evolution. He said point blank that if it weren't for his religious beliefs -- if he had only the scientific evidence -- he would accept evolution himself.

I also recall that while Dr. Wise acknowledges that the evidence so far is against YEC, he feels that evidence for YEC does exist, it's just that we haven't found it yet. So he keeps looking for it. Part of that effort is to try to get creationists to roll up their sleeves and start doing the hard work of developing actual creationist scientific models (part of his 1986 ICC presentation; follow the message link above for a much more complete development of that issue). As we all know all to well, the problem for creationism is that, with very few exceptions, creationists haven't developed any actual creationist models and still don't appear likely to.

Wise's support of a presuppositional approach instead of an approach based on evidence does make sense for his cause. If you try to use evidence to convince someone of YEC, then you will lose them when they discover that your evidence was bogus or when they find even better evidence that shows YEC to be wrong. Anyone who can be convinced of your position by evidence can also be convinced of an opposing position by evidence. But if you take a presuppositional approach of convincing them that your position is what their religious beliefs require, then it's going to take a lot more to unconvince them once they have accepted your position. Certainly the evidence wouldn't have any effect on them.

My position is that they don't really believe in God or the Bible, but rather in their own faulty interpretation of their religion.

Bruce Gleason of Back Yard Skeptics (he has a really great back yard which is ideal for meetings) has been in many debates about religion, creationism, etc. He finds trying to debate a presuppositionalist frustrating, because they just ignore anything you come up with. They start by presupposing that God exists, that proves it, end of discussion. To paraphrase from the movie, Paul, you quite literally cannot reason with those people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Phat, posted 01-04-2018 10:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018