tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post708464089614554527..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: A Summary of My Case Against ChristianityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42728165157626808762008-12-13T11:08:00.001-05:002008-12-13T11:08:00.001-05:00Harry, what were the three questions that had stum...Harry, what were the three questions that had stumped Archer?ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30295533742264704172008-07-09T21:30:00.000-04:002008-07-09T21:30:00.000-04:00I read with interest the beginning of your page, b...I read with interest the beginning of your page, but was disappointed with your conclusions because they were philosophical and not based on any "facts" to disprove Christianity. As a follower of Christ I enjoy a free exchange of ideas and although I believe the Bible is truth I do not believe it tells us everything, nor should. Remember that science and higher education through history have been propelled by religious institutions searching for knowledge. <BR/><BR/>One thing that is unacceptable in any arguement is a convenient but blantant lie to help your conclusion. I almost skipped section 6 on how Christianity must not be true because of barbarism, but read through and was alarmed to see that you directly state that(Deuteronomy 21:10-14)says "If a virgin who was pledged to be married was raped, she was to be stoned along with her rapist" A careful and educated reading of the verse clearly shows the woman in this verse is not raped, but allows herself to be overcome because of her own desires. This in clear in Deuteronomy 25:15-27 You conveniently quoted the verses before and after, but didn't quote this: "25-But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26-But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worth of death, for just as a man rises again his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27-When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her." New American Standard Translation.<BR/><BR/>Please remove this portion from your page because anyone, regardless of their beliefs or "glasses", can see it is a gross misrepresentation to help make a weak argument. <BR/><BR/>I'll be interested to see if you post this. God bless you in your choices and search for the truth. I hope that an open mind and the Holy Spirit will guide you to Christ. <BR/><BR/>Aaron Smith<BR/><BR/>PS- Science is simply trying to learn what God already knows, uses, and created.Aaron Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02831721501081034976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38261509244345307532008-02-22T21:06:00.000-05:002008-02-22T21:06:00.000-05:00Papa-Thanks for getting back to me so fast.After a...Papa-<BR/><BR/>Thanks for getting back to me so fast.<BR/><BR/>After a quick google of Irving Janis it seems my definition of groupthink is much closer than yours. Of course I believe in the innerancy of Wikipedia as much as the innerancy of the Bible, and I'm paraphrasing from memory my social psychology textbook. However, there is at least a useful quote from Janis at Wikipedia.<BR/><BR/>Rgardless, human psychology, and particularly social psychology is extremely complex. I think a typical text would describe groupthink in terms of a group of people conversing together on a deserted island with no other factors involved. I imagine that is to make a concept which in reality has many mitigating factors more easily understood.<BR/><BR/>The "classic" way to combat groupthink would be to split these castaways into several smaller groups to come up with ideas (to whatever problem you want to assign them). <BR/><BR/>It seems that high school biology teachers are subject to some constraints that would, in theory, lead to group think, but are also seperated into smaller groups which, in theory, combats groupthink.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Scientific theories are submitted for peer review, which, while not perfect, is a pretty good way to combat groupthink, and arguably the entire purpose.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that mega-churches in particular, and churches in general are much more fertile ground for groupthink.<BR/><BR/>My best,<BR/><BR/>PatrickUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502765198976822221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80707216667911063202008-02-22T19:43:00.000-05:002008-02-22T19:43:00.000-05:00Patrick,So you are saying that, for instance, when...<B>Patrick</B>,<BR/><BR/>So you are saying that, for instance, when a large group (say, high school biology teachers) inform my son that life can come from non-life, that they <I>have more of a tendency to stop looking at alternatives than if they were all working individually</I>?<BR/><BR/>Got it.<BR/><BR/>By-the-by, Janis is the person who coined and founded <B>groupthink</B>.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66820955480098794972008-02-22T19:21:00.000-05:002008-02-22T19:21:00.000-05:00Papa Giorgio-I've never heard of Irving Janus, but...Papa Giorgio-<BR/><BR/>I've never heard of Irving Janus, but that is not what "groupthink" means in modern social psychology.<BR/><BR/>To put it succinctly, it simply means that larger groups of people have more of a tendency to stop looking at alternatives than if they were all working individually.<BR/><BR/>"Groupthink" in and of itself is not a good or bad thing. If the group consensus is bad, then not looking at alternatives is bad, and so forth.<BR/><BR/>Incedentally, I think that most social psychologists would suggest that anonymous or near anonymous posting in a forum such as this would be one of the best ways to combat possible groupthink<BR/><BR/>So kudos to you for helping stave off groupthink.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502765198976822221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42130269342291069272008-02-08T03:11:00.000-05:002008-02-08T03:11:00.000-05:00I can put my beliefs to a test. But what "culture...I can put my beliefs to a test. But what "culture" do you accept as the presupposition to your outlook. I will make my point with a question Dr. Kenyon was asked:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>“What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life?”</I><BR/><BR/><B>Dr. Kenyon responded: </B><BR/><BR/><A>“Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process. <BR/><BR/>“The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.<BR/><BR/>“Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment.<BR/><BR/>“If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but your going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [it] come[s] in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.”</A><BR/><BR/>I will elucidate even further with how some presuppositions can limit your answers to the all important questions. This limit is created by the secularized Western “scientism” that infect many skeptics:<BR/><BR/><A>“Science is the human activity of seeking <B><I>natural</I></B> explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” </A><BR/><BR/>Or, is it this:<BR/><BR/><A>“Science is the human activity of seeking <I><B>logical</B></I> explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”</A><BR/><BR/>So what you are saying is that your test is greater, or more perfect than the empirical method, right?Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53006776776584758442008-02-07T05:21:00.000-05:002008-02-07T05:21:00.000-05:00Papa said...[is this a logical statement?... which...Papa said...<I>[is this a logical statement?... which laws of logic does this statement assume?].</I><BR/><BR/>A few of them that we agree on. What's the problem? <BR/><BR/>Pap said...<I>[is your test influenced by your social background, peer pressure groups, dreams, aspirations and emotions?].</I><BR/><BR/>Are you saying that you rise about these things yourself? If so, that would be a very interesting claim indeed, but contrary to what psychology tells us. The best way to test anything is by asking for evidence. It alone can rise above these things.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81535115730590630562008-02-07T04:37:00.000-05:002008-02-07T04:37:00.000-05:00I find many things you say interesting, but not in...I find many things you say interesting, but not in the way you think. I wish to give an example with some notes I put next to a boxed off portion in one of my philosophy textbooks (<I>Philosophy: A Text with Readings</I>, by Manuel Velasquez). The [boxed] additions are mine and will be followed by what I wrote in my book.<BR/><BR/><B>GROUPTHINK</B><BR/><A>The psychologist Irving Janis has coined the term <I>groupthink</I> to refer to the tendency of cohesive groups [psychologists?] to get increasingly out of touch with reality….</A><BR/><BR/><I>“Janis Gives the impression that he, unlike the rest of us, has somehow been able to evade the psychological forces that determine what (or how) the rest of us think – in other words, is this “groupthink” just psychologists thinking distortedly within their group[think]?”</I><BR/><BR/>So to comment on your post:<BR/><BR/><B>You said:</B> <I>I do not believe human beings are logical machines [is this a logical statement?... which laws of logic does this statement assume?]. We are influenced to believe what we do by our social backgrounds, peer pressure groups, dreams, aspirations and emotions [is you test influenced by your social background, peer pressure groups, dreams, aspirations and emotions?]. And as such there can be no complete separation from what one feels and what one thinks…. I am only arguing for a way to test the truth claims of the various religious viewpoints. That test [is this test influenced by your social background, peer pressure groups, dreams, aspirations and emotions?] does not produce any one particular conclusion from which I must escape the results produced by it.</I><BR/><BR/>Now, if there is disagreement and diversity about this “test” does this <A>“mean the odds are we are wrong”</A>?Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45584947706370836722008-02-06T10:07:00.000-05:002008-02-06T10:07:00.000-05:00Papa said…Diversity doesn't mean untruth. Agreed, ...Papa said…<I>Diversity doesn't mean untruth.</I> <BR/><BR/>Agreed, but it does mean the odds are we are wrong.<BR/><BR/>Papa said…<I>Faiths that run counter to the laws of logic, are false. </I><BR/><BR/>I do not believe human beings are logical machines. We are influenced to believe what we do by our social backgrounds, peer pressure groups, dreams, aspirations and emotions. And as such there can be no complete separation from what one feels and what one thinks. Where’s the logic in that? Do you want to say that human beings must abandon their feelings when trying to solve an issue? That cannot be done. There will always be a component of emotion included in our logical evaluations of these matters, and vice versa. I know people, smart people, who can logically defend something that they believe entirely for emotional reasons. How else can those of us who disagree with the Mormons or the Muslims explain what they believe any other way? And for this same reason the emotional force of the problem of evil/suffering is not one to be taken lightly either.<BR/><BR/>There is no such thing as logic in the abstract. Logic is always used by someone, and as the emotional beings we are, there will always be an emotional component to what we seek to defend with logic. Given the nature of presuppositions isn’t it true that people begin using logic after adopting a presupposition? So while the logic might lead us somewhere, logic is used to defend that which we have already adopted. And doesn’t it sound strange that we must teach people the rules of logic? People do not think logically do they? What could that possibly mean? Could it be we are simply teaching them to play by our rules, our language game? <BR/><BR/>Logic does not give us our beliefs. Logic merely helps us to see the consistency of that which we believe. It's not that logic cannot help at all; it's that it doesn't help us that much. All of us hold to mutually inconsistent propositions and don't realize it, or won't admit it. If logic is helpful in coming to the true religious and metaphysical beliefs, then why is it that we all disagree with each other?<BR/><BR/>But more to the point. How do you propose to establish either the law of excluded middle or the law of non-contradiction? You do know of Gödel’s theorem don't you? You cannot prove these laws by anything inside those logical language games, just as you cannot prove math.<BR/><BR/>And the Euthypro dilemma applies to logic as well as morality. Must God abide by these laws of Logic or did he create them?<BR/><BR/>No one can provide a meta-justification for math after Gödel’s theorem. But we can pragmatically justify it, since we started out by adding apples and then by assigning a scribble we call a "number" to it which we all agree to. Likewise, can anyone provide a meta-justification for logic? Who would dare to provide such a justification for modus ponens, for instance? To do so one must use that which he seeks to justify, logic. The validity of inference is something dogs do. When we say to our dog, "do you want supper?" he draws the inference that we're about to set out his bowl of food. We might fool him, but that's the inference he draws. Why does something like that need some kind of meta-justification apart from the fact that this what he does?<BR/><BR/>We did not assume logic; we assumed the universe and developed logic by observing how the universe works.<BR/><BR/>And as far as logic goes, <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/truth-about-informal-fallacies.html" REL="nofollow">have you seen this</A>?<BR/><BR/>Papa said…<I>You still haven’t shown me how you have escaped your culture in order to judge others.</I><BR/><BR/>This is irrelevant to what I’m proposing. My proposal should be noncontroversial. I am only arguing for a way to test the truth claims of the various religious viewpoints. That test does not produce any one particular conclusion from which I must escape the results produced by it. <BR/><BR/>Papa said…<I>By-the-by, you are now linked under my "Blogs I Watch." </I> <BR/><BR/>Great! You seem reasonable and likeable. I may reciprocate next time I change things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72093121747038520952008-02-05T20:47:00.000-05:002008-02-05T20:47:00.000-05:00Diversity doesn't mean untruth. Faiths that run c...Diversity doesn't mean untruth. <BR/><BR/>Faiths that run counter to the laws of logic, are false. <BR/><BR/>The Christian-Theistic faith is judged by the same rules we judge all beliefs by. <BR/><BR/>This means that philosophical naturalism is not the judge, but philosophical naturalism is judged as well. Empirical science tells us nothing about historical events, just as it tells us nothing about God. It can tell us about the chemical composition of bleach, but it doesn't answer whether God's existence is logical or not. It must bow to being judged to see if it violates any of the laws, like circular reasoning.<BR/><BR/><B>Skepticism is healthy</B>... and I think you may know (if not, you do now) that not enough Christians are skeptical of their own faith, or at least engage in answering the hard questions. But you aren't saying that <I>you can never be sure about anything</I>, are you? And your test is it by nature <I>materialistic</I>?<BR/><BR/>Questions aside, if you are born in India and have a belief that everything is an illusion, how do you build your house without violating what you believe <I>and</I> without accepting the Western understanding of nature, thus, rejecting (without explicitly knowing it) their own view? To say you do not exist violates the <B>fact</B> that a physical being just <B>said</B> they do not exist. <BR/><BR/>A great book that I can recommend (and I will buy yours soon to not only read when time allows, but also to support an author) is <I>A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test</I>. That books used the strength of philosophy to “test” Christianity.<BR/><BR/>In fact, William Lane Craig, in every debate that has been voted on at secular universities has won against atheists. The publishers of the book <I>Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists</I> -- Prometheus -- say the theists in this debate won it. <BR/><BR/><B>I am not</B> here saying that such victories prove that one view is right while the other is wrong, <B>just like one cannot say</B> that because there is diversity of views that no one view is right. <BR/><BR/><B>What I am saying </B>is that when you say that theists <I>“have not successfully made their case,”</I> this statement is false. It has been made good enough to beat many of the brightest atheist minds today as well as to change the sound mind of the past “pope” of atheism, Flew.<BR/><BR/>Remembering that book now, <I>Does God Exist?</I>, makes me smile because one of the contributors for the atheist side was Antony Flew, now he would be arguing for many of the points from the theistic side. I say many, but not all.<BR/><BR/>You still haven’t shown me how you have escaped your culture in order to judge others.<BR/><BR/>By-the-by, you are now linked under my "Blogs I Watch."Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39138134552050238682008-02-05T18:52:00.000-05:002008-02-05T18:52:00.000-05:00Papa thanks for commenting, but there is absolutel...Papa thanks for commenting, but there is absolutely nothing self-defeating about using a test to decide what to believe if that test can be defended on its own apart from the conclusion we reach when using that test. <BR/><BR/>It’s simply not self-defeating to say we should doubt our beliefs. It is not self-defeating to say the odds are that we are wrong. After all, we're talking about the odds here. My argument is based on the facts of religious diversity spread around the globe into separate geographical locations, and that Christians evaluate other religions from "the outside." I'm arguing people adopt their religion based upon their culture (to an overwhelming degree), which should cause all of us to subject our beliefs to scrutiny, just like Christians do with other faiths. <BR/><BR/>J. L. Schellenberg deals with this same criticism of his argument for religious skepticism in these words: “Now this objection can be sound only if my arguments do indeed apply to themselves, and it will not take much to see that they do not.” He distinguishes between “bold, ambitious, and risky metaphysical beliefs” on the one hand, which tell us that “active investigation should cease,” since “the truth has been discovered,” from “the belief that some such bold ambitious, and risky metaphysical belief is unjustified.” The latter belief merely claims that such bold and ambitious metaphysical beliefs “have not successfully made their case; it bides us to continue investigation…because skepticism is always a position of last resort in truth seeking contexts.”<BR/><BR/>Cheers my friend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42571367207821059962008-02-05T17:30:00.000-05:002008-02-05T17:30:00.000-05:00I will hop in and comment on something quickly in ...I will hop in and comment on something quickly in regards to <B>1) Sociological Reasons</B> when this was said: <A><I>Since there are no mutually agreed upon tests to determine which religion to adopt, or none at all, social cultural and political forces will overwhelmingly determine what people believe.</I></A><BR/><BR/>I would not accept this premise. I think logic, being self-evidently true (like mathematics), unlike empiricism, is a great place for any culture to start in their quest to see if they are in a faith that is first of all, logical. All religions today know of at least other religious beliefs. Even in the deepest part of Taliban held territory, they still read the Quran, which mentions both the Jewish and Christian beliefs as well as some major doctrines from them. The only thing that would stop the truth seekers in that culture would be the threat of death. So often times the conversions to a belief that show the love of Christ in contrast to the murderous hate of Muhammad is in secret. These people step above their culture and seek to compare and contrast.<BR/><BR/>For instance:<BR/><BR/><A>(UPI) During the second one-week conference on Science and the Spiritual Quest (SSQ II) that ended Tuesday in New York, Oxford University psychologist Olivera Petrovich revealed preliminary research data suggesting that the knowledge of a creator might be intrinsic to human existence. Prof. Petrovich tested the ability of British and Japanese children to distinguish between physical and metaphysical explanations for certain images. For example, she would show the four- to 14-year old children a picture of a book on a table and ask, "Who put this book there?" The kids replied, "Mom."<BR/><BR/>Then she put a picture of the sun in front of them and asked, "Who placed the sun in the sky?" The young Britons answered, "God," and to Petrovich's surprise their Japanese contemporaries said "Kamisama (God)! He did it!"<BR/><BR/>As Petrovich pointed out, <B>"Japanese culture <I>discourages</I> speculation into the metaphysical because that's something we never know. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children."</B><BR/><BR/>In an interview with the journal, <I>Science & Spirit</I>, the British scientist gave another example. The European and the Asian children were to look at the photograph of a dog and then asked, "How did the first dog every come into being." Again, both groups replied, "God did it." "This was probably the most significant finding," Petrovich reported. "But where did these Japanese kids get the idea that creation is in God's hands? <B>This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Shintoism (Japan's predominant religion) does not include creation as an aspect of God's activity at all.”<BR/><BR/>"My Japanese research assistants kept telling me that thinking about God as creator is just not part of Japanese philosophy."</B> The SSQII series of symposia and workshops organized by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, CA, will stretch over four years, with further events scheduled in France, Korea, Pakistan, Israel, Australia and Japan.<BR/><BR/>Its predecessor, SSQI held 1998in Berkeley, prompted Newsweek to marvel in a cover story, "Science finds God." As the news magazine wrote, "The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God."</A><BR/><BR/>At any rate, the <I>Metanarrative</I> that is given here is interesting. Is atheism merely a cultural more that is neither as true or less true than any other religious belief? <BR/><BR/>Authors Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl respond to this self-defeating claim by pointing out that:<BR/><BR/><A>Sumner is making a strong claim here about knowledge. He says that all claims to know objective moral truth are false because we are all imprisoned in our own cultural and are incapable of seeing beyond the limits of our own biases. He concludes, therefore, that moral truth is relative to culture and that no objective standard exists. Sumner’s analysis falls victim to the same error committed by religious pluralists who see all religions as equally valid.</A><BR/><BR/>The authors continue:<BR/><BR/><A>Sumner’s view, however, is self-refuting. In order for him to conclude that all moral claims are an illusion, he must first escape the illusion himself. He must have a full and accurate view of the entire picture…. Such a privileged view is precisely what Sumner denies. Objective assessments are illusions, he claims, but then he offers his own “objective” assessment. It is as if he were saying, “We’re all blind,” and then adds, “but I’ll tell you what the world really looks like.” This is clearly contradictory.</A><BR/><BR/>Philosopher Roger Scruton drives this point home when he says, <I>“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely negative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”</I><BR/><BR/>So even this first section must bow to the nature of logic, and this is the best <B>test to determine which religion to adopt</B>. All religions (cultural stories) can be false…. This includes the “scientific method,” but all cannot be right. And this grand narrative presented here means that someone has escaped the illusion of their culture and presents us with the real truth while at the same time saying all other cultures are wrong. Hmmmm. Something smells fishy here.Papa Giorgiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14046222162630611579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25531353883802319842008-01-02T18:14:00.000-05:002008-01-02T18:14:00.000-05:00I don't get it. So I have to be as "smart" as you ...I don't get it. So I have to be as "smart" as you to understand there is no God, and certainly not the God of the Bible?<BR/><BR/>Because you say agnosticism is the default position, therefore it is? And, according to you, the distance from it to atheism is nearer than to theism?<BR/><BR/>You call it a " "Case" against Christianity" but I see nothing resembling a true case trial.<BR/><BR/>Of the one's I read; ex. "...the donner party...", is not a "case" at all. And very similar in circumstances to many examples in the new and old testament which are sufficiently explained.<BR/><BR/>You single out Christianity (which is inextricably tied to its predecessor Judaism, and simple faith before Judaism). Wouldn't your effort be more appropriately entitled "the Case against God" ? This way you do not seem to simply be an angry and bitter individual.<BR/><BR/>If theres one thing I've learned about "atheists" (of whom I do not believe in, and you can't prove to me they do exist), they don't care if their arguments are flawed logically, or based on the extent of finite human knowledge and understanding to date, just as long as the recipient believes in and accepts it.<BR/><BR/>Hmmmm, that's a somewhat evangelical attitude (wanting the message to be believed and accepted), is it not?oldorange1https://www.blogger.com/profile/08703494139356376653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45674762495788201852008-01-02T18:11:00.000-05:002008-01-02T18:11:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.oldorange1https://www.blogger.com/profile/08703494139356376653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13051689782428113762007-12-19T11:52:00.000-05:002007-12-19T11:52:00.000-05:00This was a great post. I'm really looking forward ...This was a great post. I'm really looking forward to reading your book!<BR/><BR/>To Shygetz: sometimes I feel the need to post a comment, but you end up saying everything better than I could have. Thanks!that atheist guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16091786187162784705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56319718081813093602007-12-17T15:01:00.000-05:002007-12-17T15:01:00.000-05:00Evidence of the existence of logic as a formal sys...<I>Evidence of the existence of logic as a formal system does exist, in the form of books, papers, etc. on the topic written by independent authors that agree on the tenets. It's existence is not dependent on the idea that something cannot both be true and be false at the same time; the evidence strongly indicates that logic exists, regardless of whether or not it does not exist. The applicability of the logic formal system as a model for fruitful inquiry of the universe exists based on our ability to use logical thinking to predict the future sucessfully.</I><BR/><BR/>That's fine, but "Doubting" John was the one who suggested that the scientific method was the only means by which we can find truth. If he can't arrive at a coherent argument for logic using nothing but the scientific method then he has to admit that there are some things that transcend science, and that one of his "control beliefs" is therefore false.<BR/><BR/><I>The fact that you use the phrase "scientifically proven"...</I><BR/><BR/>Means nothing more than I am using informal conversational language in a blog discussion.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16890483936264431182007-12-17T09:09:00.000-05:002007-12-17T09:09:00.000-05:00I actually did a double-take when I saw that becau...<I>I actually did a double-take when I saw that because I thought for sure I had read it wrong. Do you similarly doubt the existence of emotions? Thoughts? Logic and reason? None of them can be scientifically proven, yet to deny their existence is self-evidently absurd.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Just a guess here, but from actually reading the comment it appears John was saying that he disputes the existence of the mind as anything other than a property of the brain.<BR/><BR/>Evidence of the existence of logic as a formal system does exist, in the form of books, papers, etc. on the topic written by independent authors that agree on the tenets. It's existence is not dependent on the idea that something cannot both be true and be false at the same time; the evidence strongly indicates that logic exists, regardless of whether or not it does not exist. The applicability of the logic formal system as a model for fruitful inquiry of the universe exists based on our ability to use logical thinking to predict the future sucessfully. <BR/><BR/>Everything else you mentioned (thoughts, emotions, and the mind) are not formal systems, but rather are non-material phenomena that we can infer exist based on separate testimony from various individuals, as well as by the predictive nature of reported emotional states on measurements of physical properties of the human body (brain waves, pulse rate, skin conductivity, etc.) These data serve as evidence that emotions do exist, but all evidence points to them as emergent properties of the brain. <BR/><BR/>The fact that you use the phrase "scientifically proven" in your diatribe suggests you have no idea what science is about. We don't prove anything; we gather evidence, build models, and make conditional inferences. Mathemeticians prove.<BR/><BR/>The assumption of science is that the universe that appears to exist actually exists, and that our observations of the universe relate to the actual universe in some repeatable way. This assumption can only be supported by circumstantial utilitarian evidence (with it, we can predict the future), but what mountains of utilitarian evidence we have acquired! This assumption has led us to certain mathematical models, including logic. Science can present no evidence for or against solipsism or the Matrix; assuming that what we observe in some way approximates a universe that actually exists, we can justify a belief in logic. We did not assume logic; we assumed the universe and developed logic by observing how the universe works. <BR/><BR/>Sure, <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/fallibility-of-human-experience.html" REL="nofollow">science does not lead to absolute certainty.</A> Think you can do better? Then I will put Elijah's challenge to you. I still have sufficient fuel left in my butane torch to take the next few contestants, but after that I'm going to have to start demanding wagers. However, I'm not a prophet of a loving God so I won't insist on murdering you when I win.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57707715044291914242007-12-15T07:32:00.000-05:002007-12-15T07:32:00.000-05:00The scientific method is based on reasons and evid...<I>The scientific method is based on reasons and evidence, silly.</I><BR/><BR/>O.K. then, use "reasons and evidence" to prove that logic exists. But of course you can't, because any "reasons or evidence" you might present will necessarily assume that the opposite can not also be true at the same time and in the same sense; that is to say you have to assume the existence of logic for your "reasons and evidence" to have any meaning which, of course, begs the question if your goal is to prove the existence of logic.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm just answering a question with a question.</I><BR/><BR/>No, you're avoiding the question because you don't want to admit that I've just shot a very big hole in your argument.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69839367394499814992007-12-14T23:01:00.000-05:002007-12-14T23:01:00.000-05:00The scientific method is based on reasons and evid...The scientific method is based on reasons and evidence, silly.<BR/><BR/>I'm just answering a question with a question. Did God create logic or not. You're claim is that God is the source of Logic. Is he?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18645749609118765562007-12-14T22:26:00.000-05:002007-12-14T22:26:00.000-05:00Darren, The Euthyphro dilemma applies equally to G...<I>Darren, The Euthyphro dilemma applies equally to God when it comes to logic, I think. Does God create logic? Then he could create a different logic or none at all. He could create logic such that A does not equal A. If however, God did not create logic, then he must abide by the same standards of reason we must abide by--without an explanation for where it came from.<BR/><BR/>Read some of Steven Pinker's stuff and get up to snuff on these issues.</I><BR/><BR/>A red herring, John? Too bad you didn't actually answer my argument. Since you suggest that the scientific method is the only means by which we can ascertain the truth, and since you can't prove the existence of logic with the scientific method, the only way you can remain consistent with your "control beliefs" is to deny the existence of logic, which is, of course, an irrational position.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58536560877639786212007-12-14T19:45:00.000-05:002007-12-14T19:45:00.000-05:00John Said..."Chris, No I don't. I've seen his stuf...John Said..."Chris, No I don't. I've seen his stuff, but what I argue is that how we look at specific texts like this depends on which bias we've already adopted. Avalos's interpretation just seems obvious to me, whereas Michael Heiser's counter-argument gerrymander's around the plain meaning of the text due to control beliefs I reject for reasons I've stated here."<BR/><BR/>OK, John. Thanks anyway.Chris Heltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11121225300389764249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62527465821388261522007-12-14T18:51:00.000-05:002007-12-14T18:51:00.000-05:00Darren, The Euthyphro dilemma applies equally to G...Darren, The Euthyphro dilemma applies equally to God when it comes to logic, I think. Does God create logic? Then he could create a different logic or none at all. He could create logic such that A does not equal A. If however, God did not create logic, then he must abide by the same standards of reason we must abide by--without an explanation for where it came from. <BR/><BR/>Read some of <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-2569133-1467838?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Steven%20Pinker" REL="nofollow">Steven Pinker's</A> stuff and get up to snuff on these issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47800495641333065522007-12-14T18:36:00.000-05:002007-12-14T18:36:00.000-05:00Chris, No I don't. I've seen his stuff, but what I...Chris, No I don't. I've seen his stuff, but what I argue is that how we look at specific texts like this depends on which bias we've already adopted. Avalos's interpretation just seems obvious to me, whereas Michael Heiser's counter-argument gerrymander's around the plain meaning of the text due to control beliefs I reject for reasons I've stated here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30271978541560673702007-12-14T18:28:00.000-05:002007-12-14T18:28:00.000-05:00John W. Loftus said... "According to Hector Avalos...John W. Loftus said... "According to Hector Avalos, in his book The End of Biblical Studies (pp. 43-44) a correct translation of this passage reveals itself to be polytheistic, to the core, for it says that the god Elyon gave certain nations with their boundaries to his sons, and Yaweh's portion was the nation of Israel!"<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the reply, John. That's the passage I figured you'd refer to, but I wasn't sure.<BR/><BR/>Do you know if Dr. Avalos interacts with Dr. Michael Heiser's work, in EBoS? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Regards, <BR/>ChrisChris Heltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11121225300389764249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12424657604085097762007-12-14T12:56:00.000-05:002007-12-14T12:56:00.000-05:00I was composing a more detailed point-by-point res...I was composing a more detailed point-by-point response when I noticed this whopper:<BR/><BR/><I>I dispute that there are such things as minds.</I><BR/><BR/>I actually did a double-take when I saw that because I thought for sure I had read it wrong. Do you similarly doubt the existence of emotions? Thoughts? Logic and reason? None of them can be scientifically proven, yet to deny their existence is self-evidently absurd.<BR/><BR/>But just for fun, if "The scientific method is the best (and probably the only) reliable guide we have for gaining the truth" then I'd love to see your defense of logic using the scientific method.<BR/><BR/>Of course, since the scientific method depends on logic, our only conclusion is that logic transcends science, and unless you're going to tell me that logic doesn't exist (but then, you did say that minds don't exist, so who knows), I think it's safe to say that "The scientific method is <I>not always</I> the best (<I>nor is it</I> the only) reliable guide we have for gaining the truth."<BR/><BR/>To be quite frank, John, your arguments here border on the irrational.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875159676599156539noreply@blogger.com