tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post113900555331459388..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Presuppose the Bible is God's Word?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152946681225082152006-07-15T02:58:00.000-04:002006-07-15T02:58:00.000-04:00BleedingIsaac:Not being familiar with TAG, I follo...BleedingIsaac:<BR/><BR/>Not being familiar with TAG, I followed Frank's earlier advice and looked up the term "impossibility of the contrary."<BR/><BR/>Most of what I found was on blogspot, but Wikipedia has some information that might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God.<BR/><BR/>John Warwick Montgomery published an article ("Once Upon a Priori") saying that "impossibility of the contrary" doesn't need the Christian God in order to work. I'm sure apologists have responses to that article.<BR/><BR/>A common objection is that the "impossibility of the contrary" employs circular reasoning. Apparently, the defense is that worldview level considerations are *supposed* to be circular; and that only Christianity can pass the tests of internal consistency and external conformity. It seems to me that the Christian worldview does not pass the test of external conformity ("the statements must not lead to contradictions in our experience or observations with the world around us"), but if the statement is only "God exists" and not "the Bible is literally true", then I guess it's OK, at least on that level.<BR/><BR/>One last comment: How nice that instead of addressing your valid questions, Menata instead points out how you're not developing a correct TA argument. I guess he's more interested in trying to make you look like a fool (oh, look, he actually says you look like a fool!) than addressing actual spiritual questions. Congratulations, Paul! Mighty Christian of you!SuperSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10507148959510773930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147430003817895912006-05-12T06:33:00.000-04:002006-05-12T06:33:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139177088330999152006-02-05T17:04:00.000-05:002006-02-05T17:04:00.000-05:00Isaac,Well I stil disagree with your analysis of B...Isaac,<BR/><BR/>Well I stil disagree with your analysis of Bahnsen but I don't feel it necessary to debate that issue. <BR/><BR/>Y would be the ontic conclusion (God exists). Also, TAs are modal arguments, dealing with the *possibility* of something.<BR/><BR/>So, we would say:<BR/><BR/>If laws of logic are possible then God exists (because God is the necessary precondition for logic)<BR/><BR/>Laws of logic are possible.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, God exists.<BR/><BR/>Now, the hypothetical is proven indirectly. That is, by a reductio ad absurdem (or, by retortion). So, you'll see an example of that when I respond to your Wittgensteinian defense of logic ;-).<BR/><BR/>But, it doesn't stop there. We also show that the characteristics of logical laws only make sense (or are possible) within a Christian theistic worldview.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, my main point was that you were not representing TAs *qua* TAs properly, let alone TAG ( a species of the genus).Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139156909221216642006-02-05T11:28:00.000-05:002006-02-05T11:28:00.000-05:00Isaac,I *did* address your stricture, which is wha...Isaac,<BR/><BR/>I *did* address your stricture, which is what I believe I was referring to. It was a *technical* note.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, what Bahnsen did there was not a transcendental *argument.* he may have been expressing his views but he was not giving a ta.<BR/><BR/>Now, Bahnsen knew a lot about TAs. He understood their general form. Since I have taken classes from his protoge, and have talked in detail about this, I think my opinion should carry some weight.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, regardless of Bahnsen or anyone else, when you claim that someone is presenting a transcendntal argument, and then you lay out their argument in *non-ta* notation, then it is *you* who looks like they do not know what they are talking about.<BR/><BR/>I would recommend "TA: Problems and Prospects" by Oxford Press. Also, you can look up TAs in most dictionary or companions to philosophy. Also, you may be interested in the article TAG found in "The Standard Bearer" by Michael Butler.<BR/><BR/>All i'm doing is letting you know that your form is not the form of a TA. At best, Bahnsen and you are wrong! But, Bahnsen was not trying to lay out a TA there.<BR/><BR/>Oh, X is any item of human experience (logic, causation, induction, morality, freedom, love, drinking water, etc). <BR/><BR/>Also, TAs proceed by retortion, I don't think yours did. TAs are anti-skeptic arguments. They take what even the skeptic accepts and shows that what the skeptic accepts presupposes some ontological fact. (Or, there are epistemological TAs with epistemic conclusions) but TAG has an ontic conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that was brief, messy and all over the place. Time is short so you got the shot gun response.<BR/><BR/>best,<BR/>PaulErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139156513231343432006-02-05T11:21:00.000-05:002006-02-05T11:21:00.000-05:00Two quick points:1. If you say you believe the bib...Two quick points:<BR/><BR/>1. If you say you believe the bible first and physical evidence second you run into a very difficult question. If you see archaeological evidence that contradicts the biblical account of creation, and you say you don't believe it because you saw a different account in the bible I would then ask you - <I>how do you know that you saw the bible?</I><BR/><BR/>2. If you say that God tests your faith by placing contradictory evidence in the world than you place yourself on a slippery slope that can never know what God wants. In other words, I could then say that God sent jesus to earth to test our faith that God can not be a man.The Jewish Freakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00959225860182589944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139081295279291532006-02-04T14:28:00.000-05:002006-02-04T14:28:00.000-05:00Hi BleedingIssac,My tone wasn't meant to be condes...Hi BleedingIssac,<BR/><BR/>My tone wasn't meant to be condescending or mean. I'm sorry you fealt that way. But I was quite serious, I really don't think you gave presuppositionalism any serious thought. For instance you said in describing my worldview, "X is the case because God has made X to be the case." God didn't <I>make</I> X to be the case. Anybody who reads Bahnsen or Van Til would know that.<BR/><BR/>If anything your replies to my "rhetoric" has uncovered your insecurity. I really do hope you study Bahnsen and Van Til more. I haven't seen any evidence that you did.<BR/><BR/>FrankFrank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139080821992995822006-02-04T14:20:00.000-05:002006-02-04T14:20:00.000-05:00bledding,"The transcendental argument is, where P ...bledding,<BR/><BR/>"The transcendental argument is, where P is "all non-Christian worldviews" and Q is "the Christian worldview":<BR/><BR/>P v Q<BR/>~ P<BR/>/ Q"<BR/><BR/>I already address this on your blog. This is not the stricture of TAG, let alone any transcendental argumenr *qua* transcendental argument.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139043264206158582006-02-04T03:54:00.000-05:002006-02-04T03:54:00.000-05:00How can you 'presuppose' the Bible is God's word, ...How can you 'presuppose' the Bible is God's word, when there is more than one Bible?<BR/><BR/>Surely you cannot 'presuppose' that the Protestant Bible is God's word or that the Catholic Bible is God's word or that the Orthodox Bible is God's word?<BR/><BR/>That would have to be a conclusion, not a presupposition.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Are there any Ivy League or Cambridge (I'll grudingly include Oxford as well) courses in the philosophy of religion which recommend reading Bahnsen or Van Til as part of getting a background into current issues in the philosophy of religion?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139042631681425552006-02-04T03:43:00.000-05:002006-02-04T03:43:00.000-05:00There are many bad things in the world, tsunamis, ...There are many bad things in the world, tsunamis, earthquakes, rabies, cholera, jealousy, envy, smallpox, AIDS and errors in books.<BR/><BR/>Apparently the only one God actually did anything about was making sure the orginal authors did not make any errors in books.<BR/><BR/>We are told that people have free will, that God would not turn them into robots, and that having free will means mistakes, and then Christians turn around and have a doctrine of 'plenary inspiration', whereby God made sure that the 'freewilled' writers wrote exactly the words he wanted written, without any errors.<BR/><BR/>If God allows evils like tsunamis and Hurricane Katrina, why did he not allow errors to creep into the original autographs of the Bible?<BR/><BR/>Why do Christians claim that God cannot prevent evil, and that God can prevent evil whenever he wants?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139036849843077592006-02-04T02:07:00.000-05:002006-02-04T02:07:00.000-05:00I don't speak for Paul but let me go on...Bleeding...I don't speak for Paul but let me go on...<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: I understand where you are going with your critique against foundationalism. Every foundation cannot have a foundation, etc.<BR/><BR/>Walton: I think there should be a distinction made between foundationalism and presuppositionalism. I wouldn't equate the two. Foundationalism can mean a number of things.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: You have to understand, though, that the vast majority of the world (especially the non-Western world) are not Christian. There are competing religious claims out there. All of those religions claim that they are the only true religion.<BR/><BR/>Walton: ... okay.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: Now, you reject them all. On what basis? Let me guess. An all-powerful being whispered it in your ear. But, then, people think they hear from God all the time. A lot of them, though, are clinically insane.<BR/><BR/>Walton: Please, name me a presuppositionalist who claimed that their rejection of said religions is because an all-powerful being whispered it in our ears. I'll give you a clue you wouldn't be able to find one. Obvioulsy, you're not familiar with the presuppositional method. Might I suggest you read up on Bahnsen and Van Til some more before asking more questions?<BR/><BR/>BleedingIsaac: So, what I'm asking is, how do you know that the whisper in your ear was not your own insanity? Do you test it with evidence?<BR/><BR/>Walton: <I>LOL</I>, if someone is insane how can they be sure if evidence would be a brute fact? As you can see evidence don't interprets itself. Swinburne's credulity principle might come in handy here.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: Do you not use evidence to make almost every decision you have to make (obviously, there are some decisions you make without sufficient evidence--e.g. believing your wife is not a cleverly crafted automaton)?<BR/><BR/>Walton: No.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: You see, it's not just a bunch of faiths out there. It's a bunch of faiths asking us non-believers to be a part of them. If we don't ask for any kind of evidence, then we cannot make that decision at all. <BR/><BR/>Walton: Well, you just said that not everything needs evidence. But you should read what I wrote to Mark Smith and John W. Loftus, "But your criteria seems to be evidentialism (that something should only be believed on the basis of evidence), which would eventually suffer an infinite regress. As I said to atheist Mark Smith, not even the most skeptical scholar of epistemology thinks that evidence is the only means of truth-gathering. The fact remains: there is more than one avenue to the truth. In Mark Smith's world, everything must have evidence. If everything must have evidence prior to acceptance, then we will never be able to establish anything as true since anything trotted out as evidence would itself need to be proven, and so on ad infinitum!" <BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: Why not submit our reason to Hinduism or Islam? What makes Christianity so special? <BR/><BR/>Walton: By the impossiblity of the contrary. I'll have you look up that term yourself.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: This is where I think Pastor Gene and other presuppositionalists are insincere. In their transcendental argument, they say that they test other worldviews for internal inconsistencies. Yet, they are unwilling to do so to their own. Listen to the beginning of the Bahnsen-Stein debate. Stein asks Bahnsen about what would disprove the Christian faith to him. Basically, Bahnsen says nothing will because, in his mind, only the Christian worldview can account for standards of reason, so using reason against its foundation is not allowable.<BR/><BR/>Walton: Well, if you listen more closely Bahnsen said, "if there is no basis for belief in the existence of God, I would relinquish that belief." If an atheist, or Muslim, or whoever can prove that you can make human intelligibility and experience cogent <I>without</I> a Christian worldview then make the case. You're just flippantly saying,"well, other religions claim they can justify reason." If so, then make that case. However, I don't see any worldview thus far that can account for human intelligibility.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: So, the presuppositionalist critiques every other worldview for internal consistency BY reason. <BR/><BR/>Walton: Just so long as that reasoning is consistent within the Christian worldview.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: It rejects, however, the notion that its internal consistency can be checked in the same way.<BR/><BR/>Walton: Well.. reason alone cannot justify itself. Thus far I doubt you made any serious research on presuppositionalism or transcendental reasoning.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIsaac: But what keeps any religion from adopting the same method? <BR/><BR/>Walton: Because they have different worldviews. Obviously, Muslims are different than Christians and would therefore have different epistemological methods.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: Why can't the Hindu say that their gods are foundation of reason and that reason, therefore, cannot be used to critique it?<BR/><BR/>Walton: Well, Hindus can say it but they'll have to make a justification for it.<BR/><BR/>BleedingIssac: This is one of the clearest cases of stacking the deck that I have ever seen.<BR/><BR/>Walton: If there's anybody who's stacking the deck, it's you BleedingIssac. You decked all religions together and make the claim that they can have transcendental reasoning for logic, too. But since they're all different it would have different consequences. Consequences we have yet to see that makes any logical sense.<BR/><BR/>As we've seen BleedingIssac has little understanding of presuppositionalism and mischaracterizes it as "God whipering in our ears."Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139029032343870892006-02-03T23:57:00.000-05:002006-02-03T23:57:00.000-05:00Paul Manata has already responded in kind however ...Paul Manata has already responded in kind however I have a few concerns:<BR/><BR/>Loftus: Paul was getting at this, I think, when he said if we don’t presuppose something then we must rely on an infinite regress of evidences. I’m not sure how I need an infinite regress of evidences to believe I exist... etc<BR/><BR/>Walton: But your criteria seems to be <I>evidentialism</I> (that something should only be believed on the basis of evidence), which would eventually suffer an infinite regress. As I said to atheist <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/atheismsucks/contrablondie.htm#Comments%20on%20Craig's%20Book:%20Reasonable%20Faith" REL="nofollow">Mark Smith</A>, not even the most skeptical scholar of epistemology thinks that evidence is the only means of truth-gathering. The fact remains: there is more than one avenue to the truth. In Mark Smith's world, everything must have evidence. If everything must have evidence prior to acceptance, then we will never be able to establish anything as true since anything trotted out as evidence would itself need to be proven, and so on <I>ad infinitum!</I><BR/><BR/>Though you gather that we can presuppose some things without evidence you didn't seem to explore that issue at all. What then would you consider something that can be presupposed without evidence and why? What's your epistemological criteria to make such an assessment?Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139028470717495542006-02-03T23:47:00.000-05:002006-02-03T23:47:00.000-05:00Pastor Gene claimed God created the whole known un...<I>Pastor Gene claimed God created the whole known universe in six literal days with the appearance of age</I><BR/><BR/>Does Pastor Gene have answer as to why God would create the appearance of age in the first place? Why would God want to confuse us?<BR/><BR/><I>it is evident that in some ninety-nine percent of the cases the religion which an individual professes and to which he or she adheres depends upon the accidents of birth.</I><BR/><BR/>So how does Pastor Gene reconcile the fact that God allows these 4 billion people who weren't fortunate enough to be born in Christian families to burn in hell for eternity? Why would God punish people because of bad luck?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139016495852194672006-02-03T20:28:00.000-05:002006-02-03T20:28:00.000-05:00http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/02/joh...http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/02/john-w-loftus-and-debunking.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1139008585747118062006-02-03T18:16:00.000-05:002006-02-03T18:16:00.000-05:00To answer your question would tend to an infinite ...To answer your question would tend to an infinite regress. Why do you believe the Bible? I believe that because X. Why do you believe X. I believe X because Y. And so on. <BR/>I will answer the question another way. I believe the Bible because it says that it is the truth. Now the question becomes do you believe X because it says that it is the truth. Then, as Gene says, we would preform an internal critique on that belief. This checks if it is true on its own terms.Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.com