Neither atheist is a description it only tells you what the person DOESN'T believe. It tells you nothing else about the person or belief systems if any exist
Let me rephrase the question. 1. - Did you (or anybody on this forum) assume from the outset that there was no god, and then based on that assumption, you interpreted the world around you? or...
2. - Did you, from a neutral standpoint, interpret everything you saw around you, and thereby came to the conclusion that a God was impossible (or inadequate)?
why does a creator define your truths?
Because "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:17). All things were created by Him, and all those things consist in Him alone. This should explain to you how for me it would be impossible for anything to exist independent of God, so how could a truth not be defined by my belief in a Creator of the same?
Hello Sac, I hope you don't mind me interjecting, but I found your questions interesting.
sac51495 writes:
So what I am saying is that God gave to us the ability to reason and make sense of the world around us, and my question to an atheist would be, from where did we get the ability to reason if there is no god to give us this ability?
What I would say is where is your proof that god gave us this ability (don't say the bible, we'll get into a circular arguemnt then). As for how I think we got our ability to reason? Our brains.
Here's a random question. If you say that it is best for things to be proven via the scientific method, then the that raises the question: was the scientific method proven correct via the scientific method?
The scientific method is proven by experience. You've got a computer, don't you? If the scientific method wouldn't work, we wouldn't have that. Nor would we have landed on the moon. That's what the scientific method has done for us so far.
And in conclusion, I need to ask a very important question to clear up some more misconceptions between us. Are you neutral in your beliefs, or were you at any point completely neutral in your worldview (pertaining particularly to the question, is there a god?)? To phrase it more clearly, when it comes to the subject of whether or not there is a god, would you define yourself as neutral, or bias?
I would describe myself as neutral. The reason I don't believe a god exists is because I haven't seen any evidence for him. As soon I have convincing evidence, I'd belief he exists. If I would worship him is an entirely independant question, however.
quote:
Before I go into responding to your post, we need to take a few steps back and see why we are unable to understand the opposing person's arguments. You apparently cannot understand my arguments, and this is my fault, as I did not clear some things up earlier.
Oh, I understand your arguments perfectly well. I'm not sure that you understand presuppositionalism, though
quote:
The first thing you must understand is that I do not believe that God handed down directly to Adam and Eve everything there was to know about mathematics and science and other such things.
The point is that when I point out formalisations that have been developed in ancient Greece or even in modern times you keep bringing out Adam and Eve. Even if they existed, they would be irrelevant.
quote:
So what I am saying is that God gave to us the ability to reason and make sense of the world around us, and my question to an atheist would be, from where did we get the ability to reason if there is no god to give us this ability?
And I would answer that we evolved the basic capability and developed various formalisations as tools to help us to use that capability.
quote:
And I made a mistake by using the term "observe/unobservable" in regards to a=a. Perhaps I should have said something more along the lines of this: we cannot reason to come to the conclusion that a=a, so we must therefore accept this to be true. No one that I know of has concluded that 1=2, 2=3 etc.
But how does that help you ? It seems to be self-evident that a thing is equal to itself. There seems to be no sensible way of denying it.
quote:
So if anyone can adhere (if they want) to different laws of logic, and they can use these laws to make certain conclusions about what they see, then why has no one yet come to the conclusion that 1=2, and 2=3 (maybe you did not specifically say that some one can use different laws of logic, but if you haven't yet said that, why couldn't someone try using different laws of logic?)?
Now there is that lack of comprehension again. While it is true that there are other logics, I have in no way suggested that any valid logic can lead to false conclusions, without using false premises.
quote:
This denotes that a=a is a universal truth, and is not subjective to the varying laws of logic of different ethnic groups. This does not mean that every single person in the world has this picture (a=a) in their mind. That's just the way the Greeks wrote it down (for instance), but ultimately, no one would say, e.g., that one person is equivalent to two people.
If you think that this is a problem for me then you don't understand my arguments.
quote:
Here's a random question. If you say that it is best for things to be proven via the scientific method, then the that raises the question: was the scientific method proven correct via the scientific method?
Assuming you are referring to the natural universe and not mathematics then it could be shown that the scientific method is better than the alternatives by the scientific method. And I think it would take a perverse attitude to suggest that anything else is better by any reasonable standard. We could argue that the failure of Rationalism left empirically-based methods the only viable way of finding out about the natural world, for instance.
quote:
And in conclusion, I need to ask a very important question to clear up some more misconceptions between us. Are you neutral in your beliefs, or were you at any point completely neutral in your worldview (pertaining particularly to the question, is there a god?)?
Originally I believed that there was a God - the Bible did a lot to undermine that notion. I do not consider myself biased in rejecting the idea now. But I know that the presuppositionalist claim is that to simply not assume that God exists - taking no position at all - is bias. You may think that that is silly - I do - but presuppositionalism is a very silly belief system.
Certainly not, and in fact, I'm glad you did because you actually answered some of the question I raised.
What I would say is where is your proof that god gave us this ability (don't say the bible, we'll get into a circular arguemnt then). As for how I think we got our ability to reason? Our brains.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but the fact must be faced that if I were to do anything less than fully adhering to the Bible, I would be committing a flagrant inconsistency with my beliefs. And further, I see nothing circular in saying that God created us in His own image, and that we thereby have the ability to reason in the [i]correct[i/] way.
The scientific method is proven by experience. You've got a computer, don't you? If the scientific method wouldn't work, we wouldn't have that. Nor would we have landed on the moon. That's what the scientific method has done for us so far.
So now, because the scientific method has been as you say "proven", does this mean that we cannot form another model by which to interpret evidence, or has the scientific method set itself up as the authority in that area, despite the fact that the scientific method does not have a truly good way of validating itself. Let me explain this in more detail. You say the scientific method was proven to be correct by experience, i.e., the idea was formed, it worked in several different scenarios, and it thereby worked itself into becoming a sort of "scientific law". But this process follows the scientific method itself. In other words, the scientific method validates itself by following its own rules. This is like a schoolyard bully, who can only win games by playing by his own rules.
None of this is to say that I discard the scientific method as trash. However, I do believe that it should not be set up as the absolute authority in determining truth.
I would describe myself as neutral.
Does this mean that from the outset you were neither an atheist nor a theist?
Certainly not, and in fact, I'm glad you did because you actually answered some of the question I raised.
Ok, glad I could be of service.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but the fact must be faced that if I were to do anything less than fully adhering to the Bible, I would be committing a flagrant inconsistency with my beliefs.
I understand your position, but certainly, you don't adhere to the bible in all things? There's some pretty bad stuff in there (stoning your kids if they're disobedient, or stoning people who work on the sabbath, for example). Surely, you don;t follow everything in the bible to the letter?
And further, I see nothing circular in saying that God created us in His own image, and that we thereby have the ability to reason in the correct way.
No, that's not circular. I was referring to the instance you would cite the bible as evidence for your belief that god gave us this ability. I would counter with, How do you know the bible is true then? Your reply would then either have to be: "I just believe it is!", which doesn't sound very convincing to me. Or it would be something like "It's the word of god!" which is circular. I.e.: The bible is true because it's the word of god, we know it's the word of god because it says so in the bible. That's what I was getting at.
So now, because the scientific method has been as you say "proven", does this mean that we cannot form another model by which to interpret evidence, or has the scientific method set itself up as the authority in that area, despite the fact that the scientific method does not have a truly good way of validating itself.
We quite possibly could. I wonder why we should though, this one has proven to be very succesful. If you can come up with a more succesful one (I.e. working to get us warp drive within the next few decades), I'd be all for it. Untill then, I'm sticking with what we've got and has proven itself to work.
Let me explain this in more detail. You say the scientific method was proven to be correct by experience, i.e., the idea was formed, it worked in several different scenarios, and it thereby worked itself into becoming a sort of "scientific law". But this process follows the scientific method itself. In other words, the scientific method validates itself by following its own rules. This is like a schoolyard bully, who can only win games by playing by his own rules.
Well, yes, but what other rules are you aware of then? Why should we discard something that has helped us humans so well in the past? If there's a better method to be demonstrated, go ahead, present it, and I'll happily embrace it. As for now, since I know of no such method, and the scientific one has worked so well, why should we discard it?
None of this is to say that I discard the scientific method as trash. However, I do believe that it should not be set up as the absolute authority in determining truth.
Ok, no discarding then. What other method do you have that has proven itself reliable?
Does this mean that from the outset you were neither an atheist nor a theist?
What's the "outset" here? When I was born, I didn't belief in and gods, so that must mean I'm atheist then (but then again, so is everybody). During my growing up, I went to catholic school, and was baptized and all that shit. I believed in Jesus and god to some extent (more like a person who had nice ideas and stuff, and for god as the creator of the universe, but more in a deist kind of way), so that wold make me a theist. At the age of 12 or so, i decided I cared about my beleifs and if they were true or not. From then on I took the position "I don't know" as a starting point. Looked for evidence for all my beliefs. Those that didn;t have any supporting evidence for them were "discarded" (I didn't belief the statement "bigfoot exists" was true for example, something I had done before this). Of course this process takes years, since there are a lot of beliefs a person can hold. And that's basically how I examine everything else I hear now. Is there evidence for it? And if so, what does it say? If there's no evidence for a clima, I act as though it's not true. Why should I? There's nothing to show it is.
God did not tell Adam and Eve about rocket science and the theory of relativity, He simply gave them the ability to reason in manner like unto Himself...the point being, if the person I spoke of had evolved in an atheist universe, how would they ever come to conclusions about the world around them?
Well, the key word there is evolved. It is conceivable that a species (us) might have made an evolutionary specialty out of being good at thinking, so that we're better at understanding the world we live in than aardvarks and giraffes and haddock. And in fact, looking at our scientific and technological achievements, this seems to be the case.
It is not conceivable that we could have achieved this encephalization quotient just for the purpose of being wrong about everything.
Let me explain this in more detail. You say the scientific method was proven to be correct by experience, i.e., the idea was formed, it worked in several different scenarios, and it thereby worked itself into becoming a sort of "scientific law". But this process follows the scientific method itself. In other words, the scientific method validates itself by following its own rules.
This is perfectly true. However, you mean it as a criticism.
Let me draw your attention to a couple of points.
Point (1). If there is some fundamental method of getting knowledge, and if we know what it is, then of course that method will testify to its own validity. We can't ask for anything more. Obviously if the scientific method is the correct way of getting knowledge, and if we know that the scientific method is the correct way of getting knowledge, then we must know this by the scientific method. You could substitute anything else for "the scientific method" in that last sentence --- call it "X" --- and that last sentence would still necessarily be true, otherwise we'd be involving ourselves in a paradox.
Point (2). You yourself believe in the scientific method --- except when you don't want to. When you cross the road, do you rely on observation, or do you close your eyes and pray? To quote David Hume:
Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience.
You actually do not wish to remove the scientific method from your own life: if you did, you would be insane, and you know it. The reason that you have been led down this philosophical path is not that you wish to abolish science altogether --- you just wish that you could ignore it when it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
This is what is known as "special pleading". So long as you cling to observation, to known scientific laws, and to rational inquiry, when it's a matter of life or death, as it is when you cross the road, then I would find it hypocritical if you should abandon such principles when it involves your religion.
And further, I see nothing circular in saying that God created us in His own image, and that we thereby have the ability to reason in the correct way.
Circular? No, it's just false.
Some people are mentally retarded. Some people are mentally ill. And even those of us who suffer from neither of those absolute defects will still blunder through life making mistake after mistake. There are simple problems in logic that over 90% of humans will get wrong.
Now this presents no problem to me, since I attribute our intelligence to the ramshackle hit-or-miss process of evolution. But if you want me to say that all this is the product of a perfect creator --- well, then we have a problem. Did he make the moron, the madman, and the bunch of fools that we all in fact are? Are stupidity, madness, and error really the product of intelligent design?
And are the moron, the madman, and the fool really made in God's image?
1. - Did you (or anybody on this forum) assume from the outset that there was no god, and then based on that assumption, you interpreted the world around you? or...
I Highly doubt it on this forum....
2. - Did you, from a neutral standpoint, interpret everything you saw around you, and thereby came to the conclusion that a God was impossible (or inadequate)?
Replace Impossible with improbable and that would be close to myself but I'm sure it doesn't apply to every atheist here. You need to understand I don't believe there isn't a god I simply have no belief in one... Very important difference
Because "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:17). All things were created by Him, and all those things consist in Him alone.
Your one and only source is the Bible and maybe your "feelings"?
o how could a truth not be defined by my belief in a Creator of the same?
I'm still not understanding. How does the existence of a god define truth anymore then nonexistence of one?
Re: Simple starting points, simple but not answered?
Hi sac51495
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.
Ah so you assume that your belief is true, rather than deduce it from evidence. In logic this is known as begging the question:
quote:Advancing an argument on the basis of statements which are assumed but need themselves to be proved, or assuming the conclusion or part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. (Sometimes called circular reasoning.)
I thought you said you used logic.
Message 135: Once again, we are created in the image of God, and this gives us the ability to reason in the correct way, thus, we will then be able to come to the correct conclusions about the world around us.
But if we are so created, then we don't need to assume that the bible is true, or that we were created with this gift, rather we can deduce this from the evidence provided by the world around us. Therefore your initial assumption is useless: useless if it is true (because it is unnecessary) and useless if it is false (because it distracts you from reality).
I guess I assumed you were an atheist because of the implications of your assumptions in one of your previous posts.
You mean because, unlike you, I didn't make any useless assumptions?
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.
Or perhaps you just need to learn more about deism.
quote:Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.
Curiously, this appears to be more consistent with your claims about logic and the use of it than religions where you are supposed to use faith as a basis of belief or belief as a basis of faith.
This is what your presupposition amounts to: pretending that your faith\belief is validated by your presupposition that your faith\belief is true.
I was referring to the instance you would cite the bible as evidence for your belief that god gave us this ability. I would counter with, How do you know the bible is true then? Your reply would then either have to be: "I just believe it is!", which doesn't sound very convincing to me. Or it would be something like "It's the word of god!" which is circular.
Even better, its his a priori assumption:
Message 132: 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 should like to say that at the very least sac51495 has raised a few interesting questions and done so in an articulate way, rather then making me think oh, no, here's another dumbfuck creationist who should have read his biology textbook back when he was in high school.
™ Version 4.2