tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115377488689471690..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: No Good Reason To Be An AtheistRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1154957769998745602006-08-07T09:36:00.000-04:002006-08-07T09:36:00.000-04:00Might want to study up on Al Ghazali. He used a s...Might want to study up on Al Ghazali. He used a similar line of reasoning 1000 years ago. He was quite successful in undermining Greek philosophy and the scientific method that emerged early in the Islamic world. He argued that Islamic mysticism was the only source of certainty. Except for mathematics, he thought math had a basis in certainty.<BR/><BR/>Al Ghazali managed to (more or less) singlehandedly throw the Islamic world into a dark age into which they have never emerged. (Of course, infighting and the Mongols helped.)<BR/><BR/>Also, might want to check into Pragmatism, the wikipedia being a good place to start. Pragmatism offers a better basis thinking about both science and religion IMO. It might help cure you of your certainty-fetish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153895603982536872006-07-26T02:33:00.000-04:002006-07-26T02:33:00.000-04:00Hiyah Danny, just a suggestion: when you criticize...Hiyah Danny, just a suggestion: when you criticize TAG via Michael Martin you're entering a world of hurt.Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153895510184883542006-07-26T02:31:00.000-04:002006-07-26T02:31:00.000-04:00This was a great essay/speech! Totally enjoyed it....This was a great essay/speech! Totally enjoyed it. Thanks, Dustin.Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153874612049974072006-07-25T20:43:00.000-04:002006-07-25T20:43:00.000-04:00Mr. Morgan,You stated,"Um, but this verse says, "w...Mr. Morgan,<BR/><BR/>You stated,<BR/><BR/>"Um, but this verse says, "while the earth remains..." and you have some verses which say that the earth will never pass away,"<BR/><BR/>Where does the Bible say that the "earth will never pass away"? It does say "heaven and earth WILL pass away . . ." (Matt. 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33)<BR/><BR/>You went on to ask,<BR/><BR/>"and some say that the earth will be melted down to the elements. Which is it? When will it happen? How many times will it happen?"<BR/><BR/>2 Peter 3:12 states that the elemental things of this world will be "melted/melted down” at the creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth which will occur at the return of Christ. This is when the earth will no longer "remain” in the state it is currently in and the general uniformity of nature as we know it will cease to be. Remember that Gen. 8:22 says, "While the earth remains . . ." You go on to state,<BR/><BR/>"Also, this verse is wrong -- we have in Joshua the earth's rotation stopping for an entire day, supposedly, so in that sense, "time" sure didn't continue uniformly, now did it?"<BR/><BR/>The Bible doesn't say that TIME stopped. Just because the sun failed to go down doesn't make the passage of time for people experiencing the event mutually exclusive. The uniformity of nature is guaranteed IN GENERAL in Gen. 8:22 (i.e., the expectant cycle of the seasons, etc.) and doesn't automatically exclude the occurrence of miraculous events such as the parting of the Red Sea, resurrections, healings, etc. It is important to note here that other natural and logical laws on earth didn't fail to operate in a uniform fashion (i.e., gravity, physiology) while the sun "stood still." The Christian worldview necessarily accounts for and expects miraculous events as recorded in the historical narratives of Scripture while maintaining the overall uniformity of nature in the midst of said events. You go on to state, <BR/><BR/>"I have heard it repeated over and over that: i) the Christian worldview 'better accounts' for logic/morality/science/X, or ii) that the atheist 'cannot account' for the same<BR/><BR/>I have yet to see a detailed explanation as to why this is, in light of what I presented above, and Martin's TANG...and you don't present it to me here, all you do is quote from other people who had beliefs about God in an ancient text."<BR/><BR/>I linked Butler's argument against Dr. Martin's TANG because I was interested in saving time (I am very busy with a family, a ministry, and a secular job) and I also see no point in reinventing the wheel, especially when Butler can explain his refutation of TANG with much greater clarity than I can. I figured you’d rather read after a man who has greater skill and clarity with philosophical writing than myself. You state,<BR/><BR/>"Your author above says, Another approach from a Christian standpoint, is to say, “There can be no certainty regarding anything without Christianity.” because he thinks the other approach employs "secular standards" of epistemology. Where this bifurcates from reality is that there are no "Christian" and "secular" standards of reality or knowledge."<BR/><BR/>With all due respect, I believe you missed the point of that section of my article. The standards of testing are “secular” in the sense that when the naturalist posits that Christianity must pass those standard tests and measures in order to be considered valid, then Christianity becomes the mere appendix to the system or worldview rather than the heart of it. So, when the Christian apologist concedes this to the naturalist, they are compromising their faith in a sense by saying that those very standards are sufficient in and of themselves for determining the truthfulness of Christianity and thus, they become guilty of arguing in an autonomous fashion that is ultimately dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ. You go on to state, <BR/><BR/>"What your author (and all presups) attempt to do is be "card sharps" -- they want to presuppose themselves as based on the truth, and so when you challenge their premises and presuppositions, you challenge "God's truth", and thus you are always wrong. Of course, Muslims can take this same approach, and tell Christians that they cannot say that Allah or the Qu'ran is wrong, since they are "arbitrary, subjective, human, etc.," and that they are "borrowing from the Muslim worldview"."<BR/><BR/>That would be a nice trick for the Muslim indeed, especially if he could demonstrate that his worldview is not internally contradictory from the get-go. Mr. Morgan, for you to say that any theistic religion can make such a claim demonstrates that you understand not the claims of the TAG, which has a very broad scope. Again, so as to not reinvent the wheel, Mike Butler answers your argument,<BR/><BR/>"In Islam, Muslims teach that Allah is absolutely transcendent and unknowable to human minds. However, the Koran repeatedly speaks of Allah. But if Allah is truly unknowable then how could it say anything about him? Indeed how can it refer to Allah as "him" rather than "it?" If Islam were consistent it would say nothing about Allah. But if it had nothing to say about Allah, it would be an entirely vacuous religion.<BR/>There are other problems with Islam. For example, the Koran teaches that Jesus is a prophet. According to Islamic theology, prophets cannot lie. The problem with this is that a contradiction is generated from these two propositions. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God while the Koran declares that nobody is begotten of God. Thus if Jesus is the Son of God then the Koran is in error since it said there is nobody begotten of God. And if Jesus is not the Son of God the Koran is still in error since it called Jesus a prophet.<BR/>More can be said of Islam (and Judaism), but this is sufficient to make my point. Only Christian theism can account for science (or logic, or ethics) since only Christian theism is internally consistent." http://members.ozemail.com.au/~seccomn/phil/martinrefute.htm<BR/><BR/>"You presuppose God, and the Bible, in order to use God, and the Bible, to argue against everything else. Simply put, that is WHY no philosophers in academe even touch presuppositional arguments -- they recognize the futility and absurdity of the "preconditions"."<BR/><BR/>You mean philosophers and scholars like Frame, Bahnsen, Strawson, Van Til, Welty, Mourad, Butler, etc. don't exist? Mr. Morgan, you clearly are unaware of the scholarship in this area. Nevertheless, thank you for willingness to interact on these issues.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153873257787115572006-07-25T20:20:00.000-04:002006-07-25T20:20:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153845877470957302006-07-25T12:44:00.000-04:002006-07-25T12:44:00.000-04:00Daniel wrote:---I imply here that the responses th...Daniel wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>I imply here that the responses that are linked to at II were not valid refutations.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>You are correct that I missed your implication there. Thank you for clarifying :-)<BR/><BR/>Daniel wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>PS: Do NONE of you know how to use HTML?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Sure, I know HTML fairly well (and PHP too, since I created all the code for my website except for the blog software, which I got from Wordpress). But these "lazy cut n pastes" work both ways...are <I>you</I> too lazy to cut n paste the URL in another browser window? ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153842946383142332006-07-25T11:55:00.000-04:002006-07-25T11:55:00.000-04:00PS: Do NONE of you know how to use HTML? I haven...PS: Do NONE of you know how to use HTML? I haven't seen a single one of the T-bloggers capable of typing in [a href=] and [/a], replacing [] with <>, to make a link, instead of just lazy cut n pastes. This is true in posts and comments.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153842827539588492006-07-25T11:53:00.000-04:002006-07-25T11:53:00.000-04:00Calvindude,Normally you wouldn't miss this, so I g...Calvindude,<BR/><BR/>Normally you wouldn't miss this, so I guess you were in a hurry:<BR/><I>Does anyone have a link to something better than is presented where I linked?</I><BR/><BR/>I imply here that the responses that are linked to at II were not valid refutations. I will check out your post and comment there.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153842586864340232006-07-25T11:49:00.000-04:002006-07-25T11:49:00.000-04:00Exbeliever has mounted an impressive refutation of...<I>Exbeliever has mounted an impressive refutation of these transcendental arguments, and clearly indicated the vacuity of theists in supporting the premise that God is a necessary precondition of knowledge/morality/logic/X. I challenge you to engage him there, as he has a forum set up for that very purpose.</I><BR/><BR/>Looks like it's a done deal already. See <A HREF="http://notmanywise.blogspot.com/2006/07/discussing-presuppositionalism-four.html" REL="nofollow">Discussing Presuppositionalism Four</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153839014856045822006-07-25T10:50:00.000-04:002006-07-25T10:50:00.000-04:00Daniel wrote:---Martin's TANG explicitly argues al...Daniel wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>Martin's TANG explicitly argues along these lines, and I haven't seen a theist refutation to it yet.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I guess you didn't see my response to it at http://calvindude.com/dude/blog/2006/04/looking-at-tang/ <BR/><BR/>Or CARM's response:<BR/><BR/>http://www.carm.org/atheism/trans_refuted.htm<BR/><BR/>Or any of John Frame's responses to Martin <I>despite</I> their being linked on the infidels.org site, such as: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin/frame_contra_martin.html ; http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin/frame_contra_martin2.html ; http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin/frame3.html ; and http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin/frame4.html.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153832981421096252006-07-25T09:09:00.000-04:002006-07-25T09:09:00.000-04:00the Christian theist has sufficient epistemologica...<I>the Christian theist has sufficient epistemological warrant to believe in the uniformity of natural and logical law because the Biblical worldview provides the necessary preconditions for such (cf. Gen. 8:22)</I><BR/><BR/>Um, but this verse says, "while the earth remains..." and you have some verses which say that the earth will never pass away, and some say that the earth will be melted down to the elements. Which is it? When will it happen? How many times will it happen?<BR/><BR/>Also, this verse is wrong -- we have in Joshua the earth's rotation stopping for an entire day, supposedly, so in that sense, "time" sure didn't continue uniformly, now did it? <BR/><BR/>I have heard it repeated over and over that: i) the Christian worldview 'better accounts' for logic/morality/science/X, or ii) that the atheist 'cannot account' for the same<BR/><BR/>I have yet to see a detailed explanation as to why this is, in light of what I presented above, and Martin's TANG...and you don't present it to me here, all you do is quote from other people who had beliefs about God in an ancient text.<BR/><BR/>Your author above says, <I>Another approach from a Christian standpoint, is to say, “There can be no certainty regarding anything without Christianity.”</I> because he thinks the other approach employs "secular standards" of epistemology. Where this bifurcates from reality is that there are no "Christian" and "secular" standards of reality or knowledge. There are only man-made and mad-derived ones, which I would label neither "secular" nor "Christian", but all <B>human</B>. Your <B>claim</B> that yours are divine is a <B>claim</B> made by humans, based on a <B>demonstrably human set of documents</B>, codified and canonized in a <B>very human process</B>, and subject to <B>very human interpretation</B>.<BR/><BR/>What your author (and all presups) attempt to do is be "card sharps" -- they want to presuppose themselves as based on the truth, and so when you challenge their premises and presuppositions, you challenge "God's truth", and thus you are always wrong. Of course, Muslims can take this same approach, and tell Christians that they cannot say that Allah or the Qu'ran is wrong, since they are "arbitrary, subjective, human, etc.," and that they are "borrowing from the Muslim worldview".<BR/><BR/>It is a cheap parlor trick, and that is <B>why</B> most Christians don't employ presuppositionalism, outside the web and blogosphere and a few disciples of Van Till.<BR/><BR/>I loved his quote, "Unbelievers can count, but they can’t account for their accounting." Hilarious. Somehow, someway, Christianity can "account" for numbers and the existence of mathematical constructs, <I>because God exists</I>. Why does this immediately solve the problem? We aren't sure, but God is the answer for that too. <BR/><BR/>You presuppose God, and the Bible, in order to use God, and the Bible, to argue against everything else. Simply put, that is WHY no philosophers in academe even touch presuppositional arguments -- they recognize the futility and absurdity of the "preconditions".<BR/><BR/>Exbeliever has mounted an <A HREF="http://notmanywise.blogspot.com/2006/06/tag-index.html" REL="nofollow">impressive refutation</A> of these transcendental arguments, and clearly indicated the vacuity of theists in supporting the premise that God is a necessary precondition of knowledge/morality/logic/X. I challenge you to engage him there, as he has a forum set up for that very purpose.<BR/><BR/>You may also enjoy his <A HREF="http://notmanywise.blogspot.com/2006/07/presuppositionalism-parody.html" REL="nofollow">conversational parody</A> between an atheist/physicalist and a presuppositionalist.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153793354907933482006-07-24T22:09:00.000-04:002006-07-24T22:09:00.000-04:00Mr. Morgan,You said,"If God exists, then certainty...Mr. Morgan,<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>"If God exists, then certainty in uniformity is absurd, and this applies as well to logical principles."<BR/><BR/>The problem is that this is not a description of the Triune God of the Bible but a voluntaristic straw man misrepresentation that doesn't exist. Yahweh doesn't manipulate nature in a whimsical fashion but works within it to fulfill His sovereign plan (cf. Psa. 135:7; Eph. 1:4-11). You go on to say,<BR/><BR/>"You have absolutely no reason to believe that God must be, or will continue to be, logical, or that God's universe will continue to be uniform (excepting miracles) -- that the laws of physics won't just up and change at God's whim. It removes the boundaries of sanity from your universe, and you have no certainty of anything."<BR/><BR/>Au contraire, the atheist is the one with the problem of induction and sanity. As the men on this blog have already testified, the Christian theist has sufficient epistemological warrant to believe in the uniformity of natural and logical law because the Biblical worldview provides the necessary preconditions for such (cf. Gen. 8:22). It is the atheistic perceptual foundationalist that cannot account for such per the posted article above. Martin's TANG is neither a transcendental argument nor does it successfully fulfill its intended goal. Thus, it fails completely as demonstrated here: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin/pen896.htmlDusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1153787374501541202006-07-24T20:29:00.000-04:002006-07-24T20:29:00.000-04:00It would seem that the transcendentals of both sci...It would seem that the transcendentals of both science and logic are inextricable from the nature of the atheist's physical universe. So long as nature can be manipulated at whim, A can be willed into B, back into A, and A can undergo fission into A and B. The physical objects that "A" and "B" describes, or the concepts they represent, which supervene on a physical mind, must be non-arbitrary and unable to be arbitrarily manipulated and redefined. If God exists, then certainty in uniformity is absurd, and this applies as well to logical principles.<BR/><BR/>That's part of the problem with God in Dawson's apt "theist's cartoon universe". You have absolutely no reason to believe that God must be, or will continue to be, logical, or that God's universe will continue to be uniform (excepting miracles) -- that the laws of physics won't just up and change at God's whim. It removes the boundaries of sanity from your universe, and you have no certainty of anything.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/#presup" REL="nofollow">Martin's TANG</A> explicitly argues along these lines, and I haven't seen a theist refutation to it yet. Does anyone have a link to something better than is presented where I linked?nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.com