Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
"Yes, although perhaps I am just being a bit overly sensitive in feeling that a few of your accusations have attacked me rather than the argument I was proposing." Just as I thought, you don't understand the meaning of the term: ad hominem[^] edit: I really don't care about your feelings as to this or that; feelings are not reasonings. And I really don't care about sparing your tender sensibilities. But an ad hominem fallacy is quite a different thing from disregard for your feelings. If you want to accuse me of logical fallacies, you really need to be sure your accusation is accurate.
No, I understand the term (as I described it appropriately above), I just misapplied it. Still, very handy site you just sent me to. Thank you once again. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. (Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) Here are a couple of examples: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
No, I understand the term (as I described it appropriately above), I just misapplied it. Still, very handy site you just sent me to. Thank you once again. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. (Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) Here are a couple of examples: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey: "No, I understand the term (as I described it appropriately above), I just misapplied it." Where did you describe it above? The nearest I can find to what some might (mistakenly) call a description is where you attempted to justify/explain what you now see was a misapplication the term to what I had previously said to you. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so perhaps you described the meaning of the term in a post addressed to someone else and I just haven't read that particular post. As near as I can see, this is the most pertinent history of this particular side-issue:
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):"
preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.
"So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term. Nor does the current use of the term imply any sort of progress. ... " Ilíon: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" " Kent Sharkey: "Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well... " Ilíon: "Do you even know what ad hominem means?" Kent Sharkey: "Yes, although perhaps I am just being a bit overly sensitive in feeling that a few of your accusations have attacked me rather than the argument I was proposing."
As best I can see, you have decided to feel insulted because I asked you: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought ... ?" and then you mistakenly called that question an ad hominen. (And because in my first response to you I non-subtly let you know that you hadn't thought clearly about the facts you were attempting to use to dispute what I had initially said.) Look, it's like this (and if you decide to tak
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
prove it. show your work.
These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't. The closest we come to an argument for the existence of God in the Bible is a handful of statements - typically made in passing - regarding things that should be obvious to all; for example, "Every house is built by some man, but He who built all things is God." The Bible speaks of faith as a gift, given to some and withheld from others (who are frequently labeled as blinded, not unconvinced). "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to those that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
The Grand Negus: "These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't." Actually, this is inaccurate (and I think part of the problem lies in the fact that far too many people don't begin to understand what the word 'prove' means and how one goes about 'proving' a proposition). In fact, there have been *many* proof-of-God arguments offered in the past 2500 years or so of Western philosophy -- note, this history goes back nearly a millenium before Christianity came to dominate and then re-make Western culture. Not all of these arguments have been sound, of course, but others of them are sound and have not been defeated ... so they are ignored. And then, seemingly in a category by itself, there is the Ontological Argument, which nearly everyone seems to believe simply *must* be an invalid (or, at best, unsatisfactory) argument, even though it appears that on one can identify just what exactly is wrong with the argument. And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before. I made reference to this argument earlier when I said to Juan:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
It's that last statement that gets at the heart of my argument; in a nut-shell: to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists. A note of criticism towards the approach (and reasoning) that both you and Juan seem to evidence: quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic. Furthermore, trying to use the Bible to prove that God exists
-
Kent Sharkey: "No, I understand the term (as I described it appropriately above), I just misapplied it." Where did you describe it above? The nearest I can find to what some might (mistakenly) call a description is where you attempted to justify/explain what you now see was a misapplication the term to what I had previously said to you. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so perhaps you described the meaning of the term in a post addressed to someone else and I just haven't read that particular post. As near as I can see, this is the most pertinent history of this particular side-issue:
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):"
preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.
"So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term. Nor does the current use of the term imply any sort of progress. ... " Ilíon: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" " Kent Sharkey: "Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well... " Ilíon: "Do you even know what ad hominem means?" Kent Sharkey: "Yes, although perhaps I am just being a bit overly sensitive in feeling that a few of your accusations have attacked me rather than the argument I was proposing."
As best I can see, you have decided to feel insulted because I asked you: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought ... ?" and then you mistakenly called that question an ad hominen. (And because in my first response to you I non-subtly let you know that you hadn't thought clearly about the facts you were attempting to use to dispute what I had initially said.) Look, it's like this (and if you decide to tak
I don't really see this discussion going anywhere productive (take that as victory as you are wont), but I know you like affirmation, so...
Ilíon wrote:
As best I can see, you have decided to feel insulted because I asked you: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought ... ?" and then you mistakenly called that question an ad hominen. (And because in my first response to you I non-subtly let you know that you hadn't thought clearly about the facts you were attempting to use to dispute what I had initially said.)
That is correct. I understand now that I was being overly sensitive and incorrectly applying that label.
Ilíon wrote:
How do you like this example? "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, it is irrational for you to not accede to it being true." (Oddly enough, and far too often, an assertion along that line is coupled, in Catch-22 manner, with an assertion such as the following: "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, you do not have the intellectual standing to criticise it.")
Never my belief at all. Rather, I believe that modern evolutionary theory is our best available explanation of our observations. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for any theory to be defined as truth. They are merely testable models based on possible explanation of observations. Good theories are testable, map well to existing observations, and make predictions for future observations. Modern evolutionary theory provides all three. As for criticism, go ahead. It is only through criticism and investigation that theories improve.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
The Grand Negus: "These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't." Actually, this is inaccurate (and I think part of the problem lies in the fact that far too many people don't begin to understand what the word 'prove' means and how one goes about 'proving' a proposition). In fact, there have been *many* proof-of-God arguments offered in the past 2500 years or so of Western philosophy -- note, this history goes back nearly a millenium before Christianity came to dominate and then re-make Western culture. Not all of these arguments have been sound, of course, but others of them are sound and have not been defeated ... so they are ignored. And then, seemingly in a category by itself, there is the Ontological Argument, which nearly everyone seems to believe simply *must* be an invalid (or, at best, unsatisfactory) argument, even though it appears that on one can identify just what exactly is wrong with the argument. And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before. I made reference to this argument earlier when I said to Juan:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
It's that last statement that gets at the heart of my argument; in a nut-shell: to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists. A note of criticism towards the approach (and reasoning) that both you and Juan seem to evidence: quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic. Furthermore, trying to use the Bible to prove that God exists
Ilíon wrote:
Though, at the same time, I see from your further response to Juan that you do understand the point(s) I'm trying to make.
Indeed I do. And I'm in agreement with you. Now consider this: You rightly say, "The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up denying the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true." The key phrase, I believe, is that last one ("things that we all know are true") because when proving anything, we must begin somewhere; we must start with some axiomatic truths that don't require proof. Since the intellectual unbeliever typically refuses to grant these "things that we all know are true" - or gives mere lip-service to them - it is impossible to produce a convincing argument (in the unbeliever's eyes). Hang on... Jesus said, "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men... neither in this world, nor in the world to come." I take this to mean that no matter how screwed up one's thinking is, there is still hope for straightening it out if one accepts those "things that we all know are true", that is, those things revealed to all by the Holy Spirit. But if you reject those, there is no hope - here or hereafter. In other words, the thought that "if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C" is a truth revealed to men by (or put into men by, or is a little piece of) the Holy Spirit - and without which we won't get very far. Accept this revelation (and others like it), and "all sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven", that is, can be eventually "worked out"; reject it, however, and you're done. And done for.
-
Chris, I apologize for the misunderstanding about your identity.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Thank you. We can't know anything about it, and that includes you. Evolution could then be a tool in his toolbox right?
To start, please tell me how do you know we cannot know anything about it? Did you experience this absolute negative? Can you observe it? Can you rationally infer it? I do know that God created every species after their own kind because He has revealed this in the Scriptures. Don't you trust revelation? I would be utterly confused if you don't based on my last paragraphs in this post. For the time being, at least please tell me something about what you trust as a source of knowledge.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Exactly. Its a book of parables written by man with the declaration of being inspired by god. It is not valid. You can't use scripture to argue against science. Sorry.
Granted: the Bible is a book written by man with the declaration of being inspired by God. Now, was it inspired or not? Why is it not valid? Is it not true that you can at least start with it as a reliable historical source? I hope you haven't studied the Bible in the same way you misread my post. If you read it again you should realize that I was not arguing against science, but clearly against its irrationally misuse and deification as the only way of knowing something. Please address a simple issue: explain how do you demand scientific proof of anything without proving first the elements you will use to evaluate that proof, i.e. the laws of logic and the reliability of your senses, your past experience, your memory, along with the principles of causality and induction? Do you trust them implicitly? Is it just because everybody else does? Or you just know they are there and would not even bother to answer nonsensical questions like this?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Funny. I've studied it.
You may find it funny, but if you have studied the Bible, how can you come to the conclusion that it is a "book of parables" when parables comprise just a small percentage of its contents? Well, probably the people, places and events mentioned there, along with their historical value, have been taken seriously by archeologists and historians just because they enjoy reading moral stories.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I'm even a Chri
juanfer68 wrote:
To start, please tell me how do you know we cannot know anything about it? Did you experience this absolute negative? Can you observe it? Can you rationally infer it?
Look, you are over thinking. We can't know, we can only believe. We can only infer. We can only assume. We can back that up in our own minds for sure, but it isn't knowledge.
juanfer68 wrote:
I do know that God created every species after their own kind because He has revealed this in the Scriptures. Don't you trust revelation? I would be utterly confused if you don't based on my last paragraphs in this post. For the time being, at least please tell me something about what you trust as a source of knowledge.
You are trusting words on paper. That's it. You put the value into the text with your own belief. Its not knowledge. Its assumption. A worthy one in my opinion, but an assumption nonetheless. Trust as a source of knowledge? Well, I trust experience. But even that can be false as its personal. I seek and I find. But I don't push what I find on others, that's for them to seek themselves. I also don't take for granted that everything claimed is true. WE DON'T KNOW.
juanfer68 wrote:
Is it not true that you can at least start with it [bible] as a reliable historical source?
I look to it as a book of parables outlining decent moral behavior. I look to it as a potential interpretation of history. Most of the old testament was put together during Babylonian captivity and is skewed to reinvigorate the jewish captives. The new testament was put together incomplete by those in Rome suiting their own purposes.
juanfer68 wrote:
Please address a simple issue: explain how do you demand scientific proof of anything without proving first the elements you will use to evaluate that proof, i.e. the laws of logic and the reliability of your senses, your past experience, your memory, along with the principles of causality and induction?
I don't naively assume that anything can be proven. I take the universe experientially and don't allow others to define this experience for me. I live it. Some of the data fits, some of it doesn't. Remember that the map isn't the territory.
juanfer68 wrote:
You may find it funny, but if you have studied the Bible
-
The Grand Negus: "These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't." Actually, this is inaccurate (and I think part of the problem lies in the fact that far too many people don't begin to understand what the word 'prove' means and how one goes about 'proving' a proposition). In fact, there have been *many* proof-of-God arguments offered in the past 2500 years or so of Western philosophy -- note, this history goes back nearly a millenium before Christianity came to dominate and then re-make Western culture. Not all of these arguments have been sound, of course, but others of them are sound and have not been defeated ... so they are ignored. And then, seemingly in a category by itself, there is the Ontological Argument, which nearly everyone seems to believe simply *must* be an invalid (or, at best, unsatisfactory) argument, even though it appears that on one can identify just what exactly is wrong with the argument. And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before. I made reference to this argument earlier when I said to Juan:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
It's that last statement that gets at the heart of my argument; in a nut-shell: to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists. A note of criticism towards the approach (and reasoning) that both you and Juan seem to evidence: quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic. Furthermore, trying to use the Bible to prove that God exists
Ilíon wrote:
And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before.
I would suggest that there is prior art[^]. You're definitely in good company on that one.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
juanfer68 wrote:
To start, please tell me how do you know we cannot know anything about it? Did you experience this absolute negative? Can you observe it? Can you rationally infer it?
Look, you are over thinking. We can't know, we can only believe. We can only infer. We can only assume. We can back that up in our own minds for sure, but it isn't knowledge.
juanfer68 wrote:
I do know that God created every species after their own kind because He has revealed this in the Scriptures. Don't you trust revelation? I would be utterly confused if you don't based on my last paragraphs in this post. For the time being, at least please tell me something about what you trust as a source of knowledge.
You are trusting words on paper. That's it. You put the value into the text with your own belief. Its not knowledge. Its assumption. A worthy one in my opinion, but an assumption nonetheless. Trust as a source of knowledge? Well, I trust experience. But even that can be false as its personal. I seek and I find. But I don't push what I find on others, that's for them to seek themselves. I also don't take for granted that everything claimed is true. WE DON'T KNOW.
juanfer68 wrote:
Is it not true that you can at least start with it [bible] as a reliable historical source?
I look to it as a book of parables outlining decent moral behavior. I look to it as a potential interpretation of history. Most of the old testament was put together during Babylonian captivity and is skewed to reinvigorate the jewish captives. The new testament was put together incomplete by those in Rome suiting their own purposes.
juanfer68 wrote:
Please address a simple issue: explain how do you demand scientific proof of anything without proving first the elements you will use to evaluate that proof, i.e. the laws of logic and the reliability of your senses, your past experience, your memory, along with the principles of causality and induction?
I don't naively assume that anything can be proven. I take the universe experientially and don't allow others to define this experience for me. I live it. Some of the data fits, some of it doesn't. Remember that the map isn't the territory.
juanfer68 wrote:
You may find it funny, but if you have studied the Bible
Chris,
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Good luck with your arguments.
Now I am really confused and I think you are right, in a sense I would need luck with your 'statements' (an argument is a substantiated claim or premise that supports others and its use presupposes the laws of logic along with the possibility of knowledge). I say 'in a sense' because luck is not an option if God "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11). The Bible provides the only consistent framework to harmonize rationally the whole package of our experience, reason, way of life and its consequences. For example, it accounts for and gives purpose to history, science, ethics, law, love, justice, mercy, etc. Out of it, every other worldview I have submitted to the test has failed due to their inconsistencies, arbitrariness or unsubstantiated claims. For an example of this you can check the case of materialism and its inadequacy in the final messages I exchanged with Chris Losinger after discussing how diamonds are created. Now, for an example of what I will call pseudo-messianism (which we can discuss later), let’s examine your post.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
We can't know, we can only believe. We can only infer. We can only assume.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The Naassene principle is to know. Through experience.
On one hand you say we cannot know while, as a Naassene, you not only know but also know how we can know! Or simply: 'I know that I cannot know and I can tell you how'; how is it that I know at least that much?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You are trusting words on paper.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Trust as a source of knowledge? Well, I trust experience.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Thomas was an apostle. Why discount the works and writings of one that walked with Jesus through his life in the flesh?
You imply that I should not trust words on paper as a source of knowledge. Now, how do you know about Thomas and his relationship with Jesus if not by... trusting words on paper? From my perspective it would make sense to at least consider Thomas' writings because, after all, I attribute some value to written words, right? How do you rationally reconcile both statements? I am willing to continue t
-
Chris,
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Good luck with your arguments.
Now I am really confused and I think you are right, in a sense I would need luck with your 'statements' (an argument is a substantiated claim or premise that supports others and its use presupposes the laws of logic along with the possibility of knowledge). I say 'in a sense' because luck is not an option if God "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11). The Bible provides the only consistent framework to harmonize rationally the whole package of our experience, reason, way of life and its consequences. For example, it accounts for and gives purpose to history, science, ethics, law, love, justice, mercy, etc. Out of it, every other worldview I have submitted to the test has failed due to their inconsistencies, arbitrariness or unsubstantiated claims. For an example of this you can check the case of materialism and its inadequacy in the final messages I exchanged with Chris Losinger after discussing how diamonds are created. Now, for an example of what I will call pseudo-messianism (which we can discuss later), let’s examine your post.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
We can't know, we can only believe. We can only infer. We can only assume.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The Naassene principle is to know. Through experience.
On one hand you say we cannot know while, as a Naassene, you not only know but also know how we can know! Or simply: 'I know that I cannot know and I can tell you how'; how is it that I know at least that much?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You are trusting words on paper.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Trust as a source of knowledge? Well, I trust experience.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Thomas was an apostle. Why discount the works and writings of one that walked with Jesus through his life in the flesh?
You imply that I should not trust words on paper as a source of knowledge. Now, how do you know about Thomas and his relationship with Jesus if not by... trusting words on paper? From my perspective it would make sense to at least consider Thomas' writings because, after all, I attribute some value to written words, right? How do you rationally reconcile both statements? I am willing to continue t
juanfer68 wrote:
I say 'in a sense' because luck is not an option if God "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11).
You are missing one point for sure. The bible is not evidence of anything except that man had these thoughts when writing it. You can't use it to prove itself or God.
juanfer68 wrote:
The Bible provides the only consistent framework to harmonize rationally the whole package of our experience, reason, way of life and its consequences.
I disagree, and we won't agree on this. You hold this book as authority. I hold it as a book.
juanfer68 wrote:
On one hand you say we cannot know while, as a Naassene, you not only know but also know how we can know! Or simply: 'I know that I cannot know and I can tell you how'; how is it that I know at least that much?
Come on, give me a break. It means to know, but that doesn't mean that we do know. It only means that we should strive to know through experience, rather than trusting written words of another. Seek the truth and the truth shall make you free. Why did Jesus command us to seek truth, if all we have to do really is just believe the words in the bible. Why the commandment? Please, answer this one.
juanfer68 wrote:
You imply that I should not trust words on paper as a source of knowledge. Now, how do you know about Thomas and his relationship with Jesus if not by... trusting words on paper?
No, I said that words on paper are just that. I also said that I correlate between the different books and judge for myself based on my own experience and the resonance of truth.
juanfer68 wrote:
1. If we ‘cannot know anything’, the Naassenes don’t have anything to teach you because they claim ‘to know’. Our discussion will then be about how you know that ‘we cannot know’, how it is that not all assumptions are equally valid, and then how reliable the sources of our different assumptions are.
Wrong. Naassenes are about SEEKING TRUTH THROUGH EXPERIENCE. SEEKING KNOWLEDGE. I contend that knowledge can't truly be had while we are in this state of the physical as we won't know til we are fully in the spirit. And if we do know here, we can't share that knowledge except as a concept til the one we are communicating with shares the experie
-
juanfer68 wrote:
I say 'in a sense' because luck is not an option if God "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11).
You are missing one point for sure. The bible is not evidence of anything except that man had these thoughts when writing it. You can't use it to prove itself or God.
juanfer68 wrote:
The Bible provides the only consistent framework to harmonize rationally the whole package of our experience, reason, way of life and its consequences.
I disagree, and we won't agree on this. You hold this book as authority. I hold it as a book.
juanfer68 wrote:
On one hand you say we cannot know while, as a Naassene, you not only know but also know how we can know! Or simply: 'I know that I cannot know and I can tell you how'; how is it that I know at least that much?
Come on, give me a break. It means to know, but that doesn't mean that we do know. It only means that we should strive to know through experience, rather than trusting written words of another. Seek the truth and the truth shall make you free. Why did Jesus command us to seek truth, if all we have to do really is just believe the words in the bible. Why the commandment? Please, answer this one.
juanfer68 wrote:
You imply that I should not trust words on paper as a source of knowledge. Now, how do you know about Thomas and his relationship with Jesus if not by... trusting words on paper?
No, I said that words on paper are just that. I also said that I correlate between the different books and judge for myself based on my own experience and the resonance of truth.
juanfer68 wrote:
1. If we ‘cannot know anything’, the Naassenes don’t have anything to teach you because they claim ‘to know’. Our discussion will then be about how you know that ‘we cannot know’, how it is that not all assumptions are equally valid, and then how reliable the sources of our different assumptions are.
Wrong. Naassenes are about SEEKING TRUTH THROUGH EXPERIENCE. SEEKING KNOWLEDGE. I contend that knowledge can't truly be had while we are in this state of the physical as we won't know til we are fully in the spirit. And if we do know here, we can't share that knowledge except as a concept til the one we are communicating with shares the experie
-
Ilíon wrote:
And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before.
I would suggest that there is prior art[^]. You're definitely in good company on that one.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent, You have pointed out to an excellent source. Do you have any answer for the transcendental argument? Please note that, according to the article, Bahnsen has already addressed all of the objections to the argument in different places, but please attempt one so we can extend the substance of this thread.
Juanfer
-
Ilíon wrote:
And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before.
I would suggest that there is prior art[^]. You're definitely in good company on that one.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Not really the same thing. Edit:
The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument for the existence of God which attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God.
My argument is not that all knowledge is meaningless "apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God." Rather, my argument is that SINCE 1) if one denies that there is a Creator-God, logically one must ultimately deny that one's own self exists; 2) the ultimate logical conclusion of 1) is absurd; 3) THEREFORE, one knows beyond any possiblility of logical and rational dispute that the denial that there is a Creator-God is false; 3a) which is to say, one knows beyond any possiblility of logical and rational dispute that the affirmation that there is a Creator-God is true. Quite a different argument. -- modified at 8:24 Thursday 22nd February, 2007 Edit again: more from the Wiki article:
The TAG is a transcendental argument which attempts to prove that the Christian God is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience, by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. R. L. Dabney shed some light on what is meant by "impossibility of the contrary" when he wrote:
A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true. (Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8[1]
Cornelius Van Til likewise wrote:
We must point out to [our opponents] that [non-theistic] reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. . . . It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own
-
Kent, You have pointed out to an excellent source. Do you have any answer for the transcendental argument? Please note that, according to the article, Bahnsen has already addressed all of the objections to the argument in different places, but please attempt one so we can extend the substance of this thread.
Juanfer
-
Juan, The other day you implicitly made reference to ideas very like this TAG or its conclusion. Chris Lossinger then (incorrectly) sought to accuse you of Question Begging.
Well, I don't think he was all that wrong about his accusation of Question Begging. The problem is that he did not address how is it even possible not to do it when we argue matters of ultimate authority for, if we resort to something else, that 'something else' becomes our new ultimate authority and that nulifies our first claim. If this is such a grievous sin against a rule in stone, he has to explain why or accept it dogmatically, which will automatically prove my point about his worldview that won't accept anything that cannot be shown. Please note his very elaborate 'argument' to my statement "But then, you have to use logic to study logic, don't you? Guess what... this is circular reasoning."
Chris Losinger wrote:
err... no.
Juanfer
-
Not really the same thing. Edit:
The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument for the existence of God which attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God.
My argument is not that all knowledge is meaningless "apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of the Christian God." Rather, my argument is that SINCE 1) if one denies that there is a Creator-God, logically one must ultimately deny that one's own self exists; 2) the ultimate logical conclusion of 1) is absurd; 3) THEREFORE, one knows beyond any possiblility of logical and rational dispute that the denial that there is a Creator-God is false; 3a) which is to say, one knows beyond any possiblility of logical and rational dispute that the affirmation that there is a Creator-God is true. Quite a different argument. -- modified at 8:24 Thursday 22nd February, 2007 Edit again: more from the Wiki article:
The TAG is a transcendental argument which attempts to prove that the Christian God is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience, by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. R. L. Dabney shed some light on what is meant by "impossibility of the contrary" when he wrote:
A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true. (Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8[1]
Cornelius Van Til likewise wrote:
We must point out to [our opponents] that [non-theistic] reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. . . . It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own
Ilíon wrote:
Not really the same thing.
It was your initial email that had me thinking you were going down the "No God, no logic" route:
I made reference to this argument earlier when I said to Juan: The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists. It's that last statement that gets at the heart of my argument; in a nut-shell: to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
I agree, no human hope for this conversation. I have never seen such display of knowledge under the claim that no knowledge is possible. Blessings, my friend.
Juanfer
Well, you can look at this way if you like. God, like truth, is living. Dynamic, not static. So an open minded skepticism serves well to be ready for what's new. Philisophically, we can debate and theorize, but til we experience, we can't know. Once we experience we can think we know, but our experience could also only be valid for ourselves. When communicated to another it becomes valid only in relation to the other's experience. This is why as philosophy we can share it all, but religiously it must be a personal matter of discovery and adventure. Plus, who are we to place any limits on reality; the playground of God? He/she can change anything that fancies him/her. This is why faith is so important. By our faith alone shall we find God. Its also the seeking and finding that's important. The personal journey of discovery.
This statement was never false.
-
I agree, no human hope for this conversation. I have never seen such display of knowledge under the claim that no knowledge is possible. Blessings, my friend.
Juanfer
Or rather that knowledge can be possible, but is subject to change, as the living truth changes with time and space. At any point, God is free to mix it up. And what we counted as knowledge has expired. So, we just can't take it for granted that knowledge isn't also a dynamic changing element of reality. Truly, for all we know we could be a dreaming butterfly.
This statement was never false.
-
Well, you can look at this way if you like. God, like truth, is living. Dynamic, not static. So an open minded skepticism serves well to be ready for what's new. Philisophically, we can debate and theorize, but til we experience, we can't know. Once we experience we can think we know, but our experience could also only be valid for ourselves. When communicated to another it becomes valid only in relation to the other's experience. This is why as philosophy we can share it all, but religiously it must be a personal matter of discovery and adventure. Plus, who are we to place any limits on reality; the playground of God? He/she can change anything that fancies him/her. This is why faith is so important. By our faith alone shall we find God. Its also the seeking and finding that's important. The personal journey of discovery.
This statement was never false.
Chris, Trying to make you explain how you know so many things about God without actually 'knowing' them did not work, so let me convert, temporarily, to your religion.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
God, like truth, is living. Dynamic, not static. So an open minded skepticism serves well to be ready for what's new.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
til we experience, we can't know
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Plus, who are we to place any limits on reality; the playground of God? He/she can change anything that fancies him/her.
My name is Dexter and I am a Beatrizian. I agree with you about all these things. According to my experience god, in his dynamic nature and right to change anything he wants, decided, just a couple of months after Thomas wrote his gospel, that he was not happy with making us brothers but cousins; that way we wouldn’t have to deal much with sibling rivalry. He also realized that having a male example might not be very popular in the XX and XXI centuries, so he decided to change history and send Beatriz instead of Jesus, but 400 years before year 1, because he wanted to give Aristotle and Plato the chance to become Beatrizians too. They had a friend who took on himself the task of giving us an account of their conversion because they were too busy trying to figure out if the world was understandable. The only copy of that account was found in my backyard last year by my dog but I decided to give it away to other people so they could become my cousins. I did not need to do this because I guess they are my cousins anyways, but thought this was a good display of love on my part because god decided to keep this as a good moral value, at least until he changes his mind again. I hope this now makes you happy and you will not disagree with the tale at all because, after all, religion is personal and we should not put any limits on reality, correct? Especially when not even god can! By the way, comparing our experiences, are we now brothers or cousins? Well, it doesn't matter anyways, we're all cool! :)
Juanfer
-
The Grand Negus: "These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't." Actually, this is inaccurate (and I think part of the problem lies in the fact that far too many people don't begin to understand what the word 'prove' means and how one goes about 'proving' a proposition). In fact, there have been *many* proof-of-God arguments offered in the past 2500 years or so of Western philosophy -- note, this history goes back nearly a millenium before Christianity came to dominate and then re-make Western culture. Not all of these arguments have been sound, of course, but others of them are sound and have not been defeated ... so they are ignored. And then, seemingly in a category by itself, there is the Ontological Argument, which nearly everyone seems to believe simply *must* be an invalid (or, at best, unsatisfactory) argument, even though it appears that on one can identify just what exactly is wrong with the argument. And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before. I made reference to this argument earlier when I said to Juan:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
It's that last statement that gets at the heart of my argument; in a nut-shell: to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists. A note of criticism towards the approach (and reasoning) that both you and Juan seem to evidence: quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic. Furthermore, trying to use the Bible to prove that God exists
Ilíon,
Ilíon wrote:
quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic
Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold: it is targeted directly to him not as a proof of the argument (this may become evident if you read those posts again with this explanation in mind), but as a confrontation with content he may otherwise never see again because of his natural rejection towards the Scriptures, which also happen to be the grounds for the philosophical challenge he still has to answer; but it is also targeted indirectly to me as a reminder of who really is the ultimate authority whenever I try to make any truth claim, to keep me away from the ever present tendency towards arrogance, self-praise and reliance on my own 'unaided reason'. With the believer I use the Bible as proof, as I am intending to do here:
Ilíon wrote:
to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists.
To prove the existence of God, shall we start with our 'self' or God's? Biblical perspective "In the beginning God" (Gen 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1) "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Pr 1:7) "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Ps 14:1) There is a natural tendency for us, as I usually experience, to meet the humanist in his own unchallenged terms without realizing that, in so doing, we are conceding a terrain they cannot claim as theirs, as we have done to this day with science. This approach, nevertheless, can be taken if our purpose is to show how their position leads only to absurdity, because the truth has nothing to fear from exposure to the light. What is the biblical approach? "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Pr 26:4,5) "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2Cor 10:5). "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ag
-
Ilíon,
Ilíon wrote:
quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic
Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold: it is targeted directly to him not as a proof of the argument (this may become evident if you read those posts again with this explanation in mind), but as a confrontation with content he may otherwise never see again because of his natural rejection towards the Scriptures, which also happen to be the grounds for the philosophical challenge he still has to answer; but it is also targeted indirectly to me as a reminder of who really is the ultimate authority whenever I try to make any truth claim, to keep me away from the ever present tendency towards arrogance, self-praise and reliance on my own 'unaided reason'. With the believer I use the Bible as proof, as I am intending to do here:
Ilíon wrote:
to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists.
To prove the existence of God, shall we start with our 'self' or God's? Biblical perspective "In the beginning God" (Gen 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1) "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Pr 1:7) "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Ps 14:1) There is a natural tendency for us, as I usually experience, to meet the humanist in his own unchallenged terms without realizing that, in so doing, we are conceding a terrain they cannot claim as theirs, as we have done to this day with science. This approach, nevertheless, can be taken if our purpose is to show how their position leads only to absurdity, because the truth has nothing to fear from exposure to the light. What is the biblical approach? "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Pr 26:4,5) "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2Cor 10:5). "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ag
Ilíon: "... quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic." Juanfer: "Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold ... " But, the point is precisely that the unbeliever does not recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. If he did, he wouldn't be an unbeliever, he'd be a Christian, or at least a Jew (by which I mean "adherent of Judaism," rather than "leftist secularist whose grandparents happened to have been an adherents of Judaism"). And, just as pointedly, if a believer's *reason* for recognizing the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge really does go no deeper than that the Bible claims to communicate messages from God, then he has no rational argument whatsoever against Islam or Mormonism or the Unification Church, or any number of other false doctrines. And, in fact, if that is as deep as his intellectual commitment to Christ goes, then when the personal crisis-point comes, he is more likely to switch his allegience to one of the multitude of false doctrines than to stick with Christ. Please don't misunderstand. I am not at all trying to claim that intellectual committment (reasonings) alone is sufficient to ground a saving faith in Christ. It isn't. If one's "faith" is *merely* a matter of the intellect, then (as you so rightly make reference) one will inevitably become arrogant and self-righteous in one's (self-)vaunted intellectual prowess. Which is to say, one will not really be a Christian. The whole man must come to Christ. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with one's cry of desperate loneliness and one does not also then *reason* through to a mature and reasonable faith, then one's committment will not last much longer than the memory of the emotion. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with a rational appraisal and affirmation of the claims of the Bible and one does not then tame one's emotions and imaginings in light of that reasoning, then one's committment will likely be overwhelmed in some future emotional storm. 'Atheists' don't recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Therefore, quoting the Bible will make no headway with them and will merely give them adequate reasonable grounds for rejecting any argument you are trying to make -- because your argument will always be circular, which is to say, *illogical.* And illogical arguments are to be rejec