Where did God come from?

grace2u responds to NosyNed:

quote:

---

Rrhain alledges others arguments to be circular and then right out discredits other peoples claims soley based on the circular nature of their argument.

---

But that's what logic forces us to do. Circular arguments can support any statement, true or false. Ergo, they must necessarily be discarded as they are not valid.

quote:

---

We start with the nature of our existance (do we exist or do others exist?-I assume he presupposes that we exist and that others do as well(outside our mind)).

---

No, I don't.Here's a hint: Rather than assume things about me, why don't you ask?

quote:

---

He then presupposes that reason and logic exist and then makes a subtle presupposition(he would probably deny) that they are universal and invariant.

---

No, I don't.Here's a hint: Rather than assume things about me, why don't you ask?

quote:

---

So, Rrhain makes the comment that other peoples arguments are circular and that this is not allowed. He does not say this however he does make the subtle claim.

---

Incorrect. I state it right out loud: Circular arguments are not allowed.The use of logic, however, is not circular. It is axiomatic. We simply state it without justification.

quote:

---

The universe is incoherent without reason and logic AND without them being universal and invariant.

---

Incorrect. Mathematics and atheists, by their very existence, show you to be wrong.

quote:

---

Atheism is an oversimplified philisophical system.

---

Thus showing that you know nothing about atheism.

quote:

---

This is a tragedy since ultimatly when they are doing this they are exchanging the glory and grace of Christ for broken cisterns that hold no water.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's wager. You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

quote:

---

The real problem for atheism comes from the fact that it can not deal with universal invariant abstract entities.

---

You haven't given any evidence that any such things exist.

quote:

---

To name one, I use absolute truth.

---

No such thing. Any evidence of such?

quote:

---

Even if we prove one system to be right or wrong today, it might not be tomorrow, so why even have the conversation?

---

Because we live in the here and now and we have to have something to go on.

quote:

---

The circular argument comes from his use of logic.

---

But logic isn't circular. It's axiomatic. It's valid because we say it is, not because it is logical. Otherwise, it would be a circular argument, and those aren't valid.

quote:

---

HOw would Rrhain then demonstrate how it is possible that some statement on existance can not both be true and not true at the same time?

---

That would be a consequence of logic, of course.But we don't use logic to justify logic...that would be circular. Instead, we take it as an axiom.

quote:

---

One must use reason to prove reason exists.

---

Incorrect. We have no real evidence that reason exists. It's called "Cartesian Doubt."

quote:

---

Such as "Since I can not comprehend how Noah got all those animals on the ark, I will reject God".

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?You seem to have forgotten, yet again, that just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god. Rejection of the Bible is not rejection of god. It is merely rejection of the Bible.Surely you aren't saying that Hindus are atheists, are you?

quote:

---

In doing this, they are exchanging the incorruptable beauty and glory of Christ for broken items.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You seem to think that Rrhain's argument is circular because it is resting on some assumed underpinnnings. While I agree that we have to understand what underpinnings we are working with and which of those are axiomatic that doesn't mean that taking some things as a starting point meets the definition of circular that we have been using so far.We carry on our discussions in a specific context which we must agree to or the discussions can not go forward. I thought that we had agreed that "reason" and "logic" are givens for this purpose. If someone wants to disagree then they might choose to argue those in a separate place.However, the definition of circular doesn't say it is a fallacy because it takes somethings as a presupposed given. It says that that is is circular if it takes the presupposition to be proven (or supported) as part of the "proof". Rrhains arguments do not do that. They may be considered to be ill founded by some if the axioms or suppositions they rest on are considered to be poor but if those foundations do not include the proposition then they are not circular arguements.You name "absolute truth" as a given in some way. However, it has been shown over and over that there is not hint that there is such a thing. You have yet to answer any of those issues that I've noticed. What? Where did you get this? What is rejected isn't some ideas of God but the idea that there is a scientific basis for the Genesis stories to be taken literally. Only the literalists insist on rejecting God. If you don't want your religious beliefs to be taken as a joke then don't insist on linking them with absurd ideas. God doesn't enter into the picture.------------------
Common sense isn't

Okay, here's some stuff you put in a reply and why I think they're kind of ... strange."quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We start with the nature of our existance (do we exist or do others exist?-I assume he presupposes that we exist and that others do as well(outside our mind)).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, I don't.Here's a hint: Rather than assume things about me, why don't you ask?"Whoa now, you're saying you don't assume that people around you exist? Maybe you could fill me in on this because if the inventor(s) of computers did not exist, you would be typing on NOTHING. Please explain."quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe is incoherent without reason and logic AND without them being universal and invariant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Incorrect. Mathematics and atheists, by their very existence, show you to be wrong."How so? You mention axioms as statements you can put forth without needing to prove them. Now if that's legit, then nobody needs to argue because we don't need to prove our points.And athiests? Shoot,athiests have reason and logic, that's why they question existence of a higher power(not saying that spiritualists do not as well. it's just their logic and reason has lead them to a different conclusion thusfar)"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheism is an oversimplified philisophical system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thus showing that you know nothing about atheism."Well, maybe that was their axiom. So much for them being okay."Pascal's wager. You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?"I think that's kind of a proverbial bitch-slap toward Christianity that isn't really on topic. Wait, maybe that's just another axiom.

Did he say that? Or rather, aren't you doing exactly what he asked Grace not to do? That is, make assumptions about what he thinks. Why don'y you ask him instead of putting words in his mouth? Well, that's exactly what axioms are. Statements that are not derived but rather assumed to be true.You don't have to play, of course. If you refuse to grant the axiom that a thing is equal to itself, for instance, then you don't have to play the math game. But the fact that math is simply so damn useful, I think, is evidence that there's some utility to be had by taking some axioms at face value. Rrhain may have another justification. No, it's a crass way of pointing out the flaw in the assumption underlying Pascal's Wager - that there's only two alternatives: belief in your idea of god or atheism. The vast plurality of religious experience in the world shows that this is not so, and therefore, Pascal's Wager is insufficient justification for your religion.(Did you all see The Mummy? And there's that weasely digger guy who releases the mummy and becomes his servant? Remember that scene where he reaches under his shirt and pulls out religious icons for every one of the major religions and starts praying in all their languages? That's what you guys look like when you invoke Pascal's Wager, because that's what Pascal's Wager is: hedging your bets with false devotion to a religion you don't really believe in. Is that sufficient justification for your faith? Somehow, I doubt it.)

You are making valid claims. These are true. I am not arguing that your claims are false, rather that they do not make sense within a worldview apart from God. Do you maintain then that I do not exist? This assumption I made is a fair assumption given the comments you have made. If you do not suppose that myself or Willotree exist or possibly that you do not even exist, then your comments are extremely irrational. Do you contend then that I exist within your mind only? Please explain. Same as before. The comments you have made would lead any unbiased person to assume you believe that reason and logic exist. Concerning the nature of such things, that is if they are universal and invariant, then what are they? They are non-universal? What are the implications of this? The truth exists here but not elsewhere? I make the statement my car is in my garage. This statement is true universaly. The statement every car on earth is in a garage is false at a universal level since there are some cars not in garages. This truth is universal. It is invariant since at all times, the statement holds. Now if I move my car then the statement is false of course (universaly) however the reasoning used does not change ever. You would not freely admit to the universal and invariant nature of truth however, your comments suggests that you do. Otherwise, who is to say it will not change? Wouldn't that render all communication on the subject matter meaningless? This again demonstrates my point. Please notice:
You are apealing to reason. You are saying that because Mathematics and atheists exist, that I am wrong. That since they exist, my conclusion can not be true. I think you got a little sloppy on this one(as we all do at times) or I misunderstood you. Mathematics existance actually is evidence for a theists worldview. It suggest order and reason exists. The existance of atheism does not prove that I am wrong either. It actualy is evidence for Christian theism as well since this type of rebelion against God is to be expected within a world bent towards depravity. Can you say the same for theism? Does the existance of theists suggest that atheism is true in any way? I would think not, correct me if you disagree. You speak as if there is-that my evidence(we all do in fact). You speak as if some truth does exist. While you might disagree that it consists of Christ. Lets assume for a moment the implications of truth not being absolute in context witth this conversation. For one, if an absolute truth does not exist, what would our discussion look like? Why do you speak as if it does? Why do you find fault in other peoples arguments(if truth is not absolute)? If you do not believe in absolute truth, why do you not just say, ok.. to each his own. Perhaps willowtree is correct and I am also correct(since this would be possible in a world void of universal truths)? Why do yo not suggest this in any of your comments? It is subtle, but ultimately YOU do believe in absolute truth. Again, you might not agree it is Christ, but you do have an understanding of this. In fact your argument is silly if you do not. Because anyone could postulate any proposition and claim it's true. Truth is universal and absolute. So by neccesity, truth is absolute. Your demands of a proof are unrealistic. You are covering your eyes from the obvious realities of the world in order to fit the world into your presupositions. I do know that you are a mathematician and obviously educated. How can you not see this truth? Go beyond the oversimplified and superficial thought and delve into the implications of your statements. Draw out the logical conclusions of your statements and thoughts and understand what they imply.You will no doubt utter the following again: Please for a moment examine your position more thouroughly. If you believe that truth is not absolute, why do your arguments not follow this line of thought? Why do you speak as if there is a truth to be found? Why do you claim to have found fault in Willowtrees arguements? In your worldview, there is no such thing as logical fault since any statement proposed can both be true and not true at the same time. Lets again examine this statement with more thought. You are essentially claiming that because a statement is axiomatic, it's valid to use in an argument. Furhtermore, you make the bold claim that a circular argument is NOT valid. You are speaking of an absolute truth. You are using reason here. How can you account for the reason you use. How can you not concede this point? To disagree on this is to demonstrate the absolute biased nature of your argument and thoughts. Lets suppose for a minute that you are correct and truth is not universal nor is it invariant. This would suggest that it will change. That the reasoning you use is dynamic. It is to suggest something like the following:
The Christian God does not exist and He does exist.Your entire argument depends upon truth being absolute and invariant. Otherwise, I could contend that the Christian God does not exist and He does exist at the same time. This does not make sense. It is illogical. It is not allowed. Why? Because truth is absolute. Can you not see how much science (and yes mathematics) and our universe depends upon this fundemental truth? Please explain to me what a universe void of absolutes would look like.PLEASE ANSWER THIS ONE:
And finaly, since you have stated that you do believe in God( I think you have at least), please indicate who you think this God is and what is your evidence for belief in him. If you are in fact an atheist please provide similar evidence for your belief.Thanks for the feedback and dialogue!
"Christe eleison"

I agree with born2preach, in fact I read his post after posting my last one, most of our comments are similar. Most references to Pascals wager within Theists arguments are straw man and represent EXTREMELY oversimplified thinking.Take care..

Born2Preach responds to me:

quote:

---

Whoa now, you're saying you don't assume that people around you exist?

---

In essence, yes. Given that my interaction with the world around me is entirely through my senses, and since I know that my senses can easily be fooled, I cannot be sure that what I experience is real. It might be, it might not.Now, there is a lot more philosophical meandering here that leads me to reject Cartesian Doubt (in short, if I can never, ever tell the difference between a real object and a simulated one, then the two are for all intents and purposes the same), but the point is that my consideration that other people do exist is not an assumption but a conclusion.

quote:

---

You mention axioms as statements you can put forth without needing to prove them. Now if that's legit, then nobody needs to argue because we don't need to prove our points.

---

Incorrect. If we are going to have a conversation, we need to have some agreement about our starting points. For example, something as basic as talking to someone else requires an agreement on which language to use. It isn't like you justify it through any sort of logic. The structure of the language, itself, is also completely arbitrary. But if you wish to have any hope of communicating, you have to start from somewhere.So we choose a language and a structure of that language without attempting to justify it because if we don't, we will never get anywhere.

quote:

---

And athiests? Shoot,athiests have reason and logic, that's why they question existence of a higher power(not saying that spiritualists do not as well. it's just their logic and reason has lead them to a different conclusion thusfar)

---

But contrary to grace2u's assertion, that process is not circular.We do not use logic to justify logic.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Pascal's wager. You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

---

​

I think that's kind of a proverbial bitch-slap toward Christianity that isn't really on topic.

---

Then grace2u shouldn't have set herself up for it. She is so sure that Christianity is the way to go that it hasn't occurred to her that her arguments are just as applicable to her religion.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I am a guy. "Christe eleison" is "Christ have mercy". I'll allow you to respond to my comments before adding more...

grace2u responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But that's what logic forces us to do. Circular arguments can support any statement, true or false. Ergo, they must necessarily be discarded as they are not valid.

---

​

You are making valid claims. These are true. I am not arguing that your claims are false, rather that they do not make sense within a worldview apart from God.

---

But you haven't shown any reason to claim there is a god. Atheists do all the things you insist they cannot do without god. Ergo, by simple inspection, your claims are false.

quote:

---

Do you maintain then that I do not exist?

---

No.I maintain I cannot know whether or not you exist. My only connection to you is through a computer (thus you may not even be a person) and even then, I am only experiencing the words on the screen through my senses. When I touch something, my brain is not actually touching it. It is receiving a signal through a series of neurons and even at the point of contact, my body isn't really touching the object but rather, an electrical interference happens.There are so many places in the process where a false signal could be introduced that my brain interprets as real that I simply cannot know if the world I experience is real or imaginary.

quote:

---

If you do not suppose that myself or Willotree exist or possibly that you do not even exist, then your comments are extremely irrational.

---

On the contrary, they form the foundation of the philosophy of knowledge. This goes all the way back to Plato at least. Surely you have heard of the Parable of the Cave, yes?

quote:

---

Do you contend then that I exist within your mind only? Please explain.

---

No, I don't contend that you do. Instead, I don't know that you don't.

quote:

---

The comments you have made would lead any unbiased person to assume you believe that reason and logic exist.

---

By axiom, not reason or logic.

quote:

---

Concerning the nature of such things, that is if they are universal and invariant, then what are they?

---

You're the one claiming universality and invariance. Therefore, that is for you to explain.I'm not claiming such, therefore it is not my burden to show.

quote:

---

I make the statement my car is in my garage.

---

How do you know? Are you in your garage? How do you know that that car is yours and not a duplicate? How do you even know that it exists and that all this is not just an elaborate dream?

quote:

---

You would not freely admit to the universal and invariant nature of truth however, your comments suggests that you do.

---

Incorrect. My comments suggest the exact opposite. There does not seem to be universal or invariant truth.

quote:

---

Otherwise, who is to say it will not change?

---

Precisely. How do you know it won't?

quote:

---

Wouldn't that render all communication on the subject matter meaningless?

---

No. Just tentative.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. Mathematics and atheists, by their very existence, show you to be wrong.

---

​

You are apealing to reason.

---

So? I've assumed them. They are taken axiomatically. I do not use reason to justify reason.And since atheists do all the things you claim cannot be done without god, then they prove your claim wrong.

quote:

---

The existance of atheism does not prove that I am wrong either. It actualy is evidence for Christian theism as well since this type of rebelion against God is to be expected within a world bent towards depravity.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. You didn't really think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?Are you saying that Hindus are really atheists? That they live in a world of depravity? Why is it that the vast majority of the world thinks that your religion is a load of hooey? Are they all living in a world of depravity, too?The mere existence of people who do not share your theology shows you to be wrong.

quote:

---

Can you say the same for theism? Does the existance of theists suggest that atheism is true in any way?

---

Nope. Atheism doesn't make a claim, in general.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To name one, I use absolute truth.

---

​

No such thing. Any evidence of such?

---

​

You speak as if there is

---

To do otherwise would require we accept it as an axiom. But since we see that truth is not universal, it cannot even be taken as an axiom since we would have led ourselves to a contradiction.

quote:

---

You speak as if some truth does exist.

---

Incorrect. I speak as if it doesn't...not in any universal or invariant sense. I have asked you to show evidence that it does.

quote:

---

For one, if an absolute truth does not exist, what would our discussion look like?

---

One wherein axioms are accepted tentatively, where conclusions are understood to be valid only in the sense that they are consistent with the established axioms and the evidence provided, etc., etc.It's one where one cannot state "I know" as if that were a universal invariant. Instead, one can say, "Given X, Y, and Z, it appears to be that."

quote:

---

Because anyone could postulate any proposition and claim it's true.

---

Precisely.What's wrong with that? So long as everyone agrees, what's the problem?

quote:

---

Truth is universal and absolute.

---

So give me an example. Why is it all examples you've tried to establish have been shown to be local and variable?

quote:

---

In your worldview, there is no such thing as logical fault since any statement proposed can both be true and not true at the same time.

---

Incorrect. Logic doesn't allow that. If you come across a contradiction, you've made a mistake somewhere.

quote:

---

You are essentially claiming that because a statement is axiomatic, it's valid to use in an argument.

---

Yes. That's the definition of an axiom: Something that is assumed to be true without justification.

quote:

---

Furhtermore, you make the bold claim that a circular argument is NOT valid.

---

It is hardly bold. It is a result of logic. A circular argument can prove anything you want. Therefore, it results in A and ~A, which is logically invalid.

quote:

---

You are speaking of an absolute truth.

---

Incorrect. I'm speaking of a dependent truth. It depends upon the functionality of logic. Change the logic so that A and ~A are allowed, and things will be different.

quote:

---

You are using reason here.

---

Yep. But I don't use reason to justify reason. That would be circular.

quote:

---

How can you account for the reason you use.

---

I don't. I don't even try. It is an axiom.

quote:

---

How can you not concede this point?

---

Because it isn't valid.

quote:

---

Lets suppose for a minute that you are correct and truth is not universal nor is it invariant. This would suggest that it will change.

---

No, it doesn't. Instead, it suggests that it could change.

quote:

---

Your entire argument depends upon truth being absolute and invariant.

---

Incorrect. Instead, it rests upon arbitrary and variable axioms that are agreed upon by the community.

quote:

---

And finaly, since you have stated that you do believe in God( I think you have at least),

---

No, I haven't.I have simply stated that I don't believe in your god. That doesn't mean I'm an atheist, but it also doesn't mean I'm not.My religious opinions are irrelevant. Things are not true or false simply because I say so.

quote:

---

please indicate who you think this God is and what is your evidence for belief in him.

---

No.

quote:

---

If you are in fact an atheist please provide similar evidence for your belief.

---

No.To quote from The Princess Bride, get used to disappointment.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

For me personally, I can only explain my faith. I have seen the many arguments of the biblical inerrency guys. I also have respectfully read many of the quite educated counterpoints offered by the positiveatheism.org and other similar sites which are represented by quite intelligent atheists. I myself am a believer because of several mystic experiences which I believed to be more than coincidental. As a believer, I claim no superiority. I can not even judge anyone, although I mistakenly do occasionally in my posts. I love to talk about the potential reality of a living and personal God for the benifit of all wh listen. Its kinda like teenagers wanting their friends to "try some of this stuff" cuz it gets you high! What more do you want to hear? Much Love and Peace, Phatboy

I don't think anybody's critical of your beliefs. What gets our knickers in a knot is when believers say "I believe that God doesn't like this, so you can't do it, no matter what you believe."It's not really about judgement. Judge me all you like. What it's about is freedom. Are you going to let me live my life, even if what I choose to do is against your beliefs? Can you handle me enjoying things that you abhor? Well, that's fine. If you're going to bring it up, though, be prepared to hear from everybody who found their personal relationship with God much akin to a personal relationship with a stalking, abusive partner. It is exactly like that. Think of us atheists, therefore, as the people who are saying "yeah, it gets you high, but it eats your brain out, too."

Woah! I am new to this discussion group, and I am finding some of these streams of thought quite interesting! On a professional note, I take the side of "Believers in a Higher power" but on a personal note, I find no preferred group of panelists, here. Both sides ==the scientific and the faith based==have some good points and some redundant sloppy ones. (I am still reading, not trying to judge anyone..forgive me!) Here is my thoughts for the hour:
The theory of evolution really boils down to the development of all living things from a single cell, which itself came from non-living chemicals. A creationist point of view will admit that changes occur through time in living organisms. Creationists may disagree that the type of changes required for molecules to man evolution occur. In other words, changes that increase information content. Lets go to our fable book, the Bible. In the "myth" known as the Genesis Original Sin story, the following events occur:
1)In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
One side is quite happy with this as a fact. The other side sees no proof for this. Hence the question of "where is the proof for God?"
Next...God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures".
One side will point out the ridiculous inconsistency of Genesis. The other side is quite happy to believe that life was created.
Next..."Let us make man in our image". The Bible thumpers may say that "us" refers to the Holy Trinity. The other side sees no proof of a Creator and sees more proof of evolution. My point is that the act of belief in "facts" is not a strong enough belief. Case in point: Bumblebees cannot fly when measured mathimatically. Yet they fly. One side claims that science is evolving in knowledge...which brings up a neat point. Note the following:
Gen 3:1-5
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Ok...this serpent states that basically Man will not die for disobeying God but, rather, will evolve into being like God.
QUESTION FOR EVOLUTIONIST: If we are evolving, what will we become next? Will we move objects with our minds? Will we fly? Will we someday teleport ourselves? If so, will we learn not to hate? Not to lust? Not to kill? Discuss amongst yourselves.
I guess that another simple way of asking a basic question related to all of this is:
What came first? The Creator or Creation itself? If one is without belief in God, one would state that science can prove the origin of life. Indeed. We are the sh*t now! We may yet evolve into super beings, eh? Note the connection with this so called creation myth story?

Personally I don't believe them to be separate things. I heartily dislike debates about the "origin of life," and I'll tell you why: "Life" is what humans decide to say it is. "Life" is a word of human language, and as such its definition is an invention of human minds. So the question "When did life begin?" is also adequately phrased as "When did lumps of matter begin to meet our more-or-less arbitrary definition of what life is?"The universe is made of energy in transition. The solar system, the earth, your city, your house, your chair, your computer, your body, your eyes, your brain... all of these are simply energy in transition. The quarks that compose the elementary particles in the plastic keys of your keyboard are fundamentally indistinguishable from the quarks of matter that make up the same elements in your brain. Only the proportions and configurations differ.My point is that "life" is a something we use to characterize certain arrangements of energy in transition which means that at a most basic and fundamental level, any ordinarily-considered "inanimate" lump of matter is itself no less or more "alive" than you are. It's simply configured differently such that it doesn't match the criteria we've abstracted to define our usual usage of the terms "life" and "alive." Well, evolution doesn't really work in terms of "superiority" or "inferiority." Organisms can be so classified according to some predefined and arbitrary criteria, however in a predictive sense, not every organism is evolving on its way to becoming a "super-organism."[This message has been edited by ::, 12-30-2003]

I have not claimed that atheists do not use logic because they don't believe in God, quite the contrary, atheists use logic and they use reason, as do Christian theists and non-Christian theists. Rather my point is that the existance of absolute truth (reason,morality,logic,etc) can not be adequately explained within the construct of atheism. I have focused on logic and reason(used interchangably somewhat slopily by my own admission). You use reason as do atheists within this forum. My point is that when atheists do this, they are using a tool that can not be explained within their worldview and therefore their worldview is lacking.
It can not because it can not deal with absolute truths. Christian theism is different since Christ consists of ALL wisdom and knowledge(from colosians somewhere). Note: I am not saying that because the bible is the word of God, the bible claims this, therefore it's true. While I believe this, my argument does not depend upon this, rather it depends upon observed realities within our world. By this do you mean to suggest that you view yourself as a prisoner within the cave and that therefore you can never truly know the truth or do you percieve yourself to be the freed one and myself to be the prisoner? My first thought is that you see yourself to be potentially a prisoner at all times and therefore aware of the possibility of seeing only shadows as opposed to reality as a freed prisoner would see. You also then probably would see my view as that of another prisoner interpreting shadows in different ways. This is fair enough however it does lead me to another question. Does not the existance of a world outside of the cave suggest an absolute truth. Does not Plato's parable NOT make sense if all that is external to the cave is simply another cave? Suppose an infinite recursive number of caves such that a prisoner when freed, simply goes to another cave that appears to be the "truth", would not the prisoner still be chained and therefore truly be a babbling fool to the other prisoners? Because of this example, I would think that Plato ultimately agrees in an absolute truth (that which is external to the cave). People might percieve this truth in differnt ways, but ultimately the truth does exist in an absolute sense. Do you agree with this? If not, explain more what you mean please. But you conclude that this is possible using reason at a minimum. In other words, your reason tells you that if something is agreed upon by axiom then it needs no further proof in order to sustain itself an argument. Take out reason from the equation and you would not be able to determine that this is true. BTW, this is not a language issue. This type of reasoning and certainly loogic in all of its splendor, is found in all human societies. It is far more powerful and consistnent(meaninful) than any language agreed upon by man. You are slightly misunderstanding me. In an ultimate sense, there is an absolute truth in this matter. It could be said that if my car is in the garage, then the statement, my car is in the garage is true. I agree that there could be a car that looks like mine in the garage and this would lead me to think that it is my car. The answer to the statement on validity would then be NO my car is not in the garage. The logic behind this would be false universaly and invariantly. That statement"I think that my car is in the garage" would be true universaly. It goes beyond the physical and into the realm of the metaphysical. The logic and its truth value go beyond my understanding and perception and into the realm of reality "extrenal the cave if you will". But there is A TRUTH. And that is my point. The possibility of the dream scenario is there, however, given the evidence suggesting the contrary, I believe it is far more likely that we do exist and that the Christian God governs the cosmos. This is probably an entire new discussion but atheism does make a claim. For one, they make the claim that the Christian God does not exist. Secondly, most make the claim that God does NOT exist period. I think that atheism realized that it is impossible to prove a universal negative(Stein?-I think) and so most simply say that they just don't know or there is not enough evidence to determine. What atheists will not say however, is that their worldview is in fact a BELIEF. They accept this system of thought by faith ultimately. I agree that a circular argument is invalid, my point is that the concepts of logic do not make sense in a world apart from God. HOw can they? I would contend that you ultimatlely do believe in this. The passion in your arguments suggest this. You might step back NOW and say that we will never know the truth, but simply by your disagreeance with Willowtree, it suggests you believe he is wrong. How can he be wrong in your worldview? PLEASE ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY. How can Willowtree be wrong(or anyone for that matter). If it is all about mere axioms, then why can't Willowtree or me for that matter create an axiom that says God exists, therefore He exists. You will probably say that it is because it's not agreed upon by everyone. I will make an axiom then that says "God exists even if everyone does not agree with me.". This kind of debate or discussion is meaningless. When I said that it renders all discussion meaningless this is what I mean. Truth MUST be absolute and since it is absolute it is invariant and universal. I am not saying Hindus are atheists. Hindus are ultimately theists. The argument I am making is not geared towards Hindus, rather towards atheists and the undecided. Towards other religions it would speak more of revealed theology and the truths contained therein.Conerning depravity, yes, they are all living in a world of depravity. In fact, we are all living in a world of depravity. It is obvious that man has a problem(self centeredness at a minimum). This problems only cure is one found external from man- throught Christ. All other religions have constructed rules such that if you follow them, you are able to attain this ultimate "spiritual end". In an attempt to follow these rules, one would certainly find themselves to be lacking ultimately. Fair enough. Although it is relevent. Surely you have reasons for whatever you believe in. I am curious what they are. Do you place the same requirments on your own belief system as you do for Christianity? Since you claim to not agree with the Christian God, please at least tell me specificaly why? Perhaps one of the greatest movies ever.
Regards..

One quick point since I'm sure Rrhain will adequately address the rest of the errors in your response to him: Because "sense" is whatever we want to say it is, not what your God says it is. The concepts of logic "make sense" to us becuase they are inventions of our human minds -- the very things we use to determine what "sense" is. Futhermore, our notions of "sense" have demonstrably changed over human history. It used to seem nonsensical to discuss a particle that interferes with itself as a result of simultaneously diffracting through two slits in a screen. It used to seem nonsensical to conceive of a particle being simultaneoulsly a wave. Heck, it used to seem nonsensical to think that the earth was spherical. In all of these instances, our ideas of "sense" were shown wrong and corrected -- even spurring the invention of new logics.[This message has been edited by ::, 12-30-2003]