Underlying Philosophy

"Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin." (Romans 6:6)
If, according to this passage, you are a slave to sin, then sin affects all the choices you make, and thus, you will choose, every time, the sinful choice...that is to choose against God. However, if God works a change in you, then you are no longer a slave to sin. Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Dr. Adequate, I merely was trying to make the point that under your worldview, the U.K. has no pretence for setting up democracy as the correct way of doing things.

Does the word "thought" indicate that you used the laws of logic?To the second remark, I will maintain my composure, and will not stoop to resorting to snide remarks to win arguments. Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Sin directs your decision, as spoken of in the verse.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:28-29)
And what is this promise that is spoken of?
"From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a SaviorJesus" (Acts 13:23)
And what does that Savior do for us?
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
This promise is not the promise of some special, fuzzy feeling but a promise to eternal lifethink of that, and try to grasp the concept of living forever, and try to grasp the concept of God, because then you can truly understand ALL things, because in Him do all things consist. I see that the people on this forum seem to be trying to understand the things around them better, and have thus formulated arguments in support of their opinions. To understand all things, however, you must attempt to grasp the concept of all things consisting in God. We cannot truly grasp this, but we can certainly try to grasp it.

Since I presume you know what I meant by abstract entities, I will continue to use this term, and if it confuses you, then just simply try to understand what I originally meant, and do not become to picky about terminology.Yes, I got that term from Greg Bahnsen, but my arguments are not simply copies of what he said, but are merely based on the basic, presuppositionalist argument that you must believe in a god to know anything.

First of all, I did not say whether or not I believe evidence is supreme. The question at hand is how you have come to assert that evidence is supreme in defining your truths.How do you type in italics?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

cavediver,This particular discussion focuses on the underlying beliefs of theist and atheists. I was describing to you my underlying beliefs, not what you call "evangelizing". I cannot withhold from you my beliefs about the Bible, because they are the basis for what I believe.In that message, I laid out why I believe what I believe...now I am asking you to lay out to me why you believe what you believe.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Let me use an example. Suppose you have been born into the world, and understand absolutely nothing, and there is no one to explain anything to you. But written on a piece of paper, you see some mathematical equations, and words written out (this involves both math and language). How, if you saw the equation 1+1=2, would you ever determine anything about what this meant. Realize that you have no concepts of anything; you do not know what numbers are, nor the equals and plus sign, you do not know what the ink is, nor the paper, you do not even have a concept of what a "something" is... you cannot make sense of anything, because you do not even know of the concept of "making sense". How can you look at the equation 1+1=2 and say "hey, that makes sense" when you don't even know what "making sense" is. How would you ever come to a conclusion about the patterns of the language, for you do not know the concept of coming to a conclusion. To take it even further, the person would have no concept of what a concept is. How can a person begin to form a concept, when they do not even know what a concept is? They do not know ANYTHING. How then, would anyone, ever, in the history of the world, come to a conclusion, because in your worldview, at some point, someone had to begin to understand the concepts of logic. In my universe however, all understanding and knowledge comes from God. God passed it down to Adam and Eve, and they passed it on to their descendants and so on. But you also ask, "how can understanding and knowledge be contained within God?". You also say that "I can just as well say that logic etc. is contained within the universe". Firstly, the universe is material, it is not a being. God is a being, He is not material. He created all things, and once again I will use the concept of the potter and the clay to illustrate this.If a potter makes a clay vessel, we cannot use that vessel to describe what the potter is like. Likewise, we cannot use reasoning (which can be fallacious itself) to describe God, since God created it himself. We can, of course, try to determine what a potter’s tastes and preferences are by observing their creation. In just the same way, we can attempt to reason in order to understand God, but we can never fully understand the Creator perfectly by means of the creation. You asked, could things be completely different? My answer would be that in your universe, things certainly could be different, so why aren't they?The comparison between God and the universe is invalid, because the universe is just material, while God is non-material. Thus, these two cannot be compared.So what do I think logic is? Firstly, I believe that we are created in the image of God. Becuase of this, we have the ability to think and reason in a manner like to that which God can. Reasoning is an ability given to us by God. The "laws" of logic, are simply the rules given to us by God that we adhere to in order to make sense of things. If we did not use these rules, nothing would make sense. So God has made us to understand these rules, so that we would be able to think correctly.I have observed you say a number of times that you do not derive logic from anything. You say that we observe for example mathematics, language, and other such things, outline the consistencies, and there we have our laws of logic. However, mathematics themselves are based on certain postulates. Do you think that geometry was invented by the Greeks via observing geometric figures, outlining the consistencies, and that they then somehow came up with a pile of theorems? No. Geometry begins with certain postulates, e.g., "two points determine a unique straight line". This cannot be proven systematically, for the simple reason that to prove something, you must have a reason for your statement. If in a geometry proof, you need to draw a line, you must have a reason for doing so. This reason would be the aforementioned postulate. You cannot say something is true because of consistency, because there is no "consistency postulate" in geometry (but even if you had one, note that it would be a postulate). The point being this: you say that you have no presuppositions, but geometry says that all things must have a starting assumption. If you say that you have no presuppositions, then you deny geometry, which begins with certain postulates itself.The reason that I am pointing to geometry is not because I am setting geometry up as my authority, I am merely citing mathematics because it is one of the things that you say is logical, and that we base our laws of logic on mathematics.

How could a supreme creator not define all my truths?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Thanks. Ultimately then, if "reality" is subjective, then there is no reality...right?

You aren't really supposed to answer the question I asked...the point of the question was just that if there is a supreme creator, then He would have to define all my truths. Why? You've probably heard of the term "born again". This does not mean that we suddenly "have a feeling". This means that we have been completely transformed by the Creator himself, so that our truths are derived from the very person who transformed us.

I will respond to the rest of your message eventually, but for now I just wanted to focus on the geometry part. If all things in geometry were observed as you say, how did Euclid observe that a=a? Sounds a little arbitrary to me. There is absolutely no way to prove that a=a. This is beyond all doubt, a postulate of geometry (and math for that matter). And to take it a little further, how do we know that our concept of equality and congruence is correct? Do we have any way of formally proving that a=a is correct? We obviously cannot observe that a=a, neither can we prove it. This leaves only one choice: to make it a postulate. How can we know that this postulate is correct? I believe that logical thinking and the ability to make sense of the world around us has been ingrained in us by a Supreme Being, without which there is no source for us to get a basis for logic, or a concept of logic, or a concept itself. How can we make sense of this world if there is no deity governing over it in its entirety? From where did we get knowledge and wisdom? Did the postulates of mathematics evolve like you say everything else did? If they didn't evolve, then do you believe they are eternal? I believe that to make any sense of this world, something must be eternal; whether it be matter or a Godhead, something must be eternal. But the perpetuation of matter is an impossibility, so that leaves only one choice: an eternal Godhead. To make the point once more: a=a cannot be observed to be true (if so, explain how), neither can it be proven. It follows that a=a is a postulate. The question then arises, from where did this postulate come? Is it a human construct, or is it a part of nature that has always been there? Both are an impossibility, and that leaves only one possibility: an eternal Godhead.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

RAZD,I am going to ask a direct question which begs a direct answer.Is atheism the presupposition of what you believe, or is atheism the conclusion of what you believe?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

I'm sorry I missed that question. The answer is simple. My basic assumption is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and has since been ruling over it in an omnipotent and omniscient manner, and that he sent his Son to carry the burden of His children's sin, and we thereby have forgiveness and the ability to enter into His kingdom.I see from your signature now that you are a deist. Before I go into an argument with you then, I need to know if you believe that God is dead, or if you believe that He just no longer controls the universe? Or, if I am still mistaken about your beliefs, please tell me.I guess I assumed you were an atheist because of the implications of your assumptions in one of your previous posts.