Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

You ever notice that in movie posters like this one:They list the actors in reverse order as their pictures appear? It's to avoid complaints about who's getting the top billing. I imagine it's Percy's intent to give both evolutionism and creationism the same coutesy. The problem with the Presuppositionalist argument is that it assumes that all preconceptions and interpretations are equal. They're not, of course.For instance creationists complain about how it's the materialist viewpoint that dominates our science classes and culture, but they forget that their viewpoint dominated western thought for almost 1,300 years after Christ.What do we call that period? The Dark Ages. In the years after, when we've subsitituted the set of "preconceptions" represented by materialism, we've accomplished so much: from the realization of universal gravitation, to the re-emergence of theatre, to the development of medicine, communications and the internet, and even putting a man on the moon.Clearly one of those "preconceptions" is superior to the other. I'll stake my money on methodological naturalism any day of the week, including Sunday. Reject the scientific process if you like, but shouldn't you sell your computer and move to a cave at that point?

Right, but you wouldn't be the first one to use that as a stepping stone to imply that creationism is simply an alternative but equally valid interpretation of data.But your own example disproves the idea that there's mutliple valid interpretations of data:

quote:

---

you presuppose the Butler did it all through the movie until you get that last piece of evidence that overturns every fact you were so confident in when you applied that evidence to the Butler.

---

Evidence isn't interpreted piece by piece. You interpret evidence by generalization, like connecting the dots. You can't connect a single dot all by itself. It's those multiple points of data that allow for valid interpretations. You'll note that in your own example, when all the data is revealed, "the butler did it" ceases to be avalid interpretation.Given a weight of evidence, there's only one valid interpretation: the right one. Any other interpretations are the result of either fallacious reasoning or incomplete data. Of course, all scientific theories suffer from incomplete data; it's this steady influx of data that is responsible for the change in scientific theory over time. Yeah, I might have. Sorry about that. I kinda saw this as my big chance to leap down the throat of a presuppositionalist. Sorry if I missed my mark. If I did,let me pose the question: what, to you, would be significant about the idea of multiple valid interpretations?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-02-2004]

Well, you said this:

quote:

---

This statement presumes that facts speak for themselves. Even your signature "common sense isn't" [so common] expresses the notion that all evidence is interpreted.

---

...which is usually how people start the Argument from Alternate, Valid Interpretations of Data.I guess maybe you confused me, or something. Sorry for jumping the gun. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-02-2004]

Logic is merely a language with very restrictive grammar. I dont't see what that has to do with God.If logic is like God then you're going to have to deal with the fact that God must therefore be incomplete or inconsistent, like logic is.