A Question for Anyone who Believes in the Judeo-Christian God

So, you are the fellow that Erasmus says will "hand me my arse"?

The incremental games that you Christians try to play may go over the heads of the lesser thinking man, but I (being a former one of you) know exactly where it all heads.

First, the apologist tries to establish some common ground between the unbeliever and himself (usually using pseudo-science, misinterpreting or manipulating real science, or trying to prick his emotions with skewed logic). William Lane Craig is a perfect example.

Now, obviously I don't know what you, personally, believe as a presuppositionalist, but I can only guess based on prior dealings. That is, unless you are having a different "interpretation".

You want an example? I was under the impression I supplied that in my last post with the skewed logic of assuming "God" is the most reasonable and most logical conclusion to the question of the "uncaused cause" philosophical "problem" that most all apologist and presuppositionalists use although they try to sneak about at first acting as if they "aren't mentioning God", but they're headed there. Sooner or later the philosophical "problem" will need a solution and guess what it will be? *cha-ching*

Furthermore, I'd like you to show me how it is EVER the most reasonable answer and prove that it is not a foreign concept being introduced to explain the mystery of such and such (in this case, for instance, the cause of the universe). Oh...and the Bible (even if 100% accurate in all historical references) does not prove the objective existence of the character they call "God" exists in our "reality" anymore than "Gone With The Wind" proves the character of Rhett Butler existed in our "reality" in during the Civil War.

Already gave an example of how religious quacks fill the gaps with their supernatural mumbo-jumbo with the "volcano gods". So what it doesn't have to do with Christianity? It's all the same bunch of supernaturalistic quackery. Imaginary being, imaginary worlds, imaginary concepts such as "sin", "salvation", etc. Christianity isn't as unique as Christians proclaim it to be. And it still has to face the same test.

For centuries it was the Christians who held science back, held progress back and pushed their bloody agenda forward. Bottom line: Christianity is another form of belief system which espouses the existence of the supernatural and provides ZERO viable evidence for such except for pseudo-science and emotion-pricking.

Philosophy (I love it) is great, but if it has no basis in reality without some sort of evidence that can be confirmed as, AT LEAST, MORE REASONABLE than not, it is merely just head games--fun, entertaining but nothing more.

I guess your BRAND is different than what I've been surrounded by. Do you not hold that one must presuppose the reality of God ?? I was under the impression that WAS presuppositionalism. You presuppose "God" and rely more on going from that starting point. This, I think, is completely ridiculous just because there is no good REASON to do this that I can see. Perhaps, you can show me where I am mistaken and lead this lost sheep back to the "Truth".

Where my nose doesn't belong? Are you the Forums Police?

*LOL* Please. After half these nutcase Christians on here, it is refreshing to speak with someone who half-way makes sense. Although, I'm not going to get my hopes up.

 

I would argue that the notion of God, as it is usually presented, is "senseless jargon" (explained below). While it is the case that Mrs. Gunison is a devout (and well-read) Catholic whom I believe has something in mind when she goes to church, prays her rosary, and claims she believes in God, what exactly does 'God' mean?

I'm not asking that question in a wide-eyed, trite undergraduate kind of way either. Rather, what I'm after is 'God's' [the word] worldly-cash value and explanatory power. A philosopher I'm partial to, C S Peirce, gives the following example worth quoting at length:

"Thus, we come down to what is tangible and practical, as the root of every real distinction of thought, no matter how subtle it may be; and there is no distinction of meaning so fine as to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice.

To see what this principle leads to, consider in the light of it such a doctrine as that of transubstantiation. The Protestant churches generally hold that the elements of the sacrament are flesh and blood only in a tropical sense; they nourish our souls as meat and the juice of it would our bodies. But the Catholics maintain that they are literally just that; although they possess all the sensible qualities of wafer-cakes and diluted wine. But we can have no conception of wine except what may enter into a belief, either:

That this, that, or the other, is wine; or,
That wine possesses certain properties.

Such beliefs are nothing but self-notifications that we should, upon occasion, act in regard to such things as we believe to be wine according to the qualities which we believe wine to possess. The occasion of such action would be some sensible perception, the motive of it to produce some sensible result. Thus our action has exclusive reference to what affects the senses, our habit has the same bearing as our action, our belief the same as our habit, our conception the same as our belief; and we can consequently mean nothing by wine but what has certain effects, direct or indirect, upon our senses; and to talk of something as having all the sensible characters of wine, yet being in reality blood, is senseless jargon."

It's the last sentence I'm especially interested in (and I use 'senseless jargon' in this manner above). Put as concisely as possible, what does God add to (i.e. what definite difference does God make in) the theistic explanation (I'm talking about explanations here, NOT what may or may not have spiritual value in one's everyday life)?

Most of the theistic positions I've come across seem to suffer from the same problem found in Peirce's wine example (which is a theological example only by coincidence as he readily explains). That is, everything (or all the qualities we can point to and agree exist) about the now sacrosanct wine in the Catholic Eucharistic ceremony is the same as the non-sacrosanct wine, but the wine is now somehow other or more than it was.

Turning to the universe, here we have some rather well-reasoned and well supported scientific explanations for how the universe began (up to a point, as I'll explain in a moment) and what happened with the universe since it began up to the present time. But we can't say how the "initial matter" (i.e. what "exploded" in the so-called Big Bang) got there. In fact, such an answer is likely outside the province of science as the laws of science break down prior to the Big Bang.

Enter theology with the claim 'God created the universe.' But what has the theist added to the existing explanation? I would argue nothing. That is, we have the same explanation as we had before, but with an extra claim tacked on that isn't doing any work in the explanation. There aren't any worldly effects that can be attributed to God, rather than something else nor can we say excatly how God went about doing what he did. Without being able to explain either of these two claims, the theist doesn't seem to have explained anything, but has merely uttered the proposition 'God created the universe.' If this proposition means something, then what precisely does it mean?

Bear closely in mind the scope of this objection. It is a linguistic objection to theology, not a spiritual one. Claims that faith makes one a better person, or that God is love, while personally valuable, fall outside the scope of my argument. I'm only concerned with what the words in our explanations mean and what (if any) explanatory power they have.

 

Jatom:


If sense-data were not generally reliable, then the success of science, the success of technology, and even our own survival could be attributed to nothing less than a cosmic miracle. We can think of the senses as being analogous with scientific instruments. The reliability of our senses is put to the test every waking hour of our lives. When I say “put to the test,” I literally mean just that because it is nothing less than an experiment. We experience causal sequences that we come to recognize as immutable, and so we infer that they have a real, metaphysical existence (as in, outside the mind). So, we are able to test particular instances of sense-data against the theoretical backdrop of immutable laws. If a particular sense-datum is inconsistent with a law, then either there is some inaccuracy with the sense-datum or the law is not immutable. So, while it is appropriate, from time to time, to call a one or more instances of sense-data into question, it is unreasonable to call the entire set of sense-data in one’s mind into question as one has no knowledge other than this to base inferences upon. To deny the general reliability of sense-perception leads to more ridiculous conclusions than to accept it, such as solipsism, idealism, and skepticism.



There are several problems with attempting to find a “sure footing” for knowledge. The first is that all past claims to providing such a footing have failed: Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Hume, etc. The second is strengthened by the first, that while the natural sciences have made substantial progress over the centuries with a reliablist strategy to gaining knowledge, philosophy has lagged behind. The third is that the typical idea of what such a footing would look like is dogmatic. Most philosophers would say that the sure footing would be deducible from a set of entirely analytic a priori truths, or axioms. When asked what makes these truths analytic a priori, the dogmatist will respond along the lines that they are “necessary” or “true by definition.” But this is to say nothing more than that they are analytic a priori, and so it is circular. Even though Hume proved that induction cannot be justified by anything but an appeal to induction, it is still the case that deduction cannot be justified by anything but an appeal to deduction.



Knowledge is built from the ground up, not from above by a set of axioms. Everything, even the principles through which we gain knowledge, are subject to criticism.

 

While I do see your point, you must realize that all that you say relies on sensory perception. You say, for example, that if “sense-data were not generally reliable, then the success of science, the success of technology, and even our own survival could be attributed to nothing less than a cosmic miracle.” Well if it were the case that our sensory perception were not reliable than it would be nonsense to appeal to “data” gathered through the senses in an effort to show the validity of sensory perception, since to do so already assumes, in circular fashion, that “sense-data” is “generally reliable.” I think in essence what you end up saying is something like, “Since sense-data is generally reliable, it is therefore generally reliable, and it is nonsense to speak otherwise,” which is fallacious when put against the question, “How do we know that sensory perception is reliable?” All I’m trying to point out is that if sensory perception is not grounded in a more ultimate source, then it becomes unreasonable to believe in the reliability of the senses, in which case the axiom--the first principle, or the starting point, or the presupposition, or the whatever you want to call it--“sense-data is generally reliable,” becomes a belief grounded in faith, not reason. I think that solipsism, or skepticism, or nihilism, etc. is only the consequence of someone who consistently claims to be with without faith (as belief in what is unreasonable), and even then, I think those positions are untenable.

You say a lot here. I am not quite sure what you mean by “sure footing,” but I gather from your explanation below that (but certainty not from some of the philosophers you mention) that you are at least alluding to rationalism, in which case I would agree. Descartes needed to appeal to fallacious reasoning in order to get his philosophy off the ground--inferring existence from doubt--and similarly Anslem’s famous argument is not immune to fallacy either, in my opinion. Also, I don’t exactly buy the whole analytic/synthetic distinction of propositions, nor do I believe that only uninformative tautologies can be considered necessary. And I do not argue that one’s axioms must be necessary in order to be axioms. In fact, I would argue that if an axiom is necessary in that it is an analytic proposition, such as A=A, than it gives no useful information about the real world unless one makes the logical leap in affirming that the truth of proposition somehow applies to external world as well. At any rate, my point remains the same, that everyone has axioms from which they build their world view. I believe, for example, that it can be shown that you take for an axiom the reliability of sensory perception.

 

I understand that it is circular, but no less circular than any system of axioms. Simply because you designate a proposition as an "axiom" doesn't make it somehow immune from criticism. Even if the axiom is clearly analytic a priori, there is no way to justify belief in that axiom other than to call it "self-evident" or something along those lines, which is also plainly circular. So, even appealing to axioms doesn't solve the problem.

But is it a leap of faith to claim that sense-data is reliable, regardless of whether it is axiomatic or not? No. First, I cannot help but believe my senses, while faith is a conscious choice. I may be able to doubt my senses as an intellectual exercise, but in real life it's just in our nature to accept the reliability of our senses. Second but along similar lines, when faced with the decision either to accept or reject our senses, it is only reasonable to accept them. If we accept our sense-data as accurate, then knowledge is possible. If we do not, then no knowledge is possible. But if this is the case, then the proposition "No knowledge is possible," cannot be known. This is the inherent contradiction of skepticism. So, there is really no "choice" to speak of, at all. The acceptance of sensory experience is not an axiom. It's merely a common-sense principle for normative reasoning.

What I mean by "sure footing" includes rationalism but is not exclusive to it. Both Locke and Hume, I believe, used the term "sure footing" in the first parts of Essays and Enquiry when explaining knowledge acquisition and their definitions of the term "idea." This, I think, is what you would call "axiomatic." I, however, have no first principles that claim to guarantee a "sure footing" for the sciences or philosophy, and my conception of the word "idea" is far more modest.

Also, if an axiom isn't "self-evident," then it's not an axiom. To call such a proposition an axiom would only be to beg the question without explicitly doing so. Nonetheless, that's still what it amounts to. If I say that "The sky is blue is an axiom in my philosophy," and someone asks "Why?" and I reply "Because it's an axiom," then that makes the so-called axiom explicitly circular.

A perfect example of a philosopher who built a philosophy out of common-sense principles that are not axioms is G. E. Moore, particularly in his Refutation of Idealism.

 

It does not follow from you knowing “exactly where it all heads,” that the “incremental games” we Christians play lead to false conclusions. In fact, that you know where it all heads really says nothing at all except that you know where it all heads.

Are you talking to me, or to William Lane Craig? A presuppositionalist does not try to establish common ground. And William Lane Craig is not a presuppositionalist. Though I suppose you have switched from taking about presuppositionalism specifically to apologetics in general. I cannot defend the apologetic methods of every Christian apologist, nor do agree with them all, so you would do better to talk to me instead. But I do find it rather interesting that you would accuse Craig of using pseudo-science, misinterpreting or manipulating real science, or trying to prick his emotions with skewed logic. But I guess in this world one can pretty much say whatever he pleases. But actually qualifying their statement is another thing, and as of yet, this notion of qualifying one statements seems to be concept and skill foreign to you. It is one thing to merely assert something, but is quite another to actually make an attempt at showing it to be the case. The irony here is that I’m sure you’re tickled at how Christians regularly make statements such as, “God loves me!” without attempting to qualify themselves.

Of course beliefs and methods will differ from person to person, but there are common “themes” found in all brands of presuppositionalism.

First off, as best I can tell thus far, at least part of your arguments boil down to you not liking the fact that an apologist’s arguments head in a certain direction--towards God. You seem to have expressed this very clearly in the above quote. In essence, I think your arguments equate to nothing more than an emotive expression of disagreement, not an actual rational argument.

Second off, I find it very hard to even follow much of your argumentation since it appears, at least to me, to be veiled in much confusion. For example, you seem to think that cosmological argument is supposed to “prove” that the God of the Bible exist, but to the contrary, the cosmological argument only “proves” that an uncaused cause exist, and what the nature of that uncaused cause has to be. It says nothing about the ethical nature and benevolence of God, or anything about the acts of God in history, etc. You can call this uncaused cause God, but it is completely mistaken to think that this God is the God of Bible, for that does not follow from the cosmological argument alone. This is why the cosmological argument can be used for both the caring and active triune God of Christianity, and the uncaring deistic Allah of Islam. The aim of the cosmological argument is to show that three options exist: Either the universe has no beginning and is uncaused, that is, it is the uncaused cause, the universe has a beginning and that there must exist a cause prior to it which caused it, or the universal just came into existence out of nothing. From there the apologist would obviously try to show that the first and third options are not possible.

And third again you make assertion after assertion with no qualification. We are told, for example, that the logic of the apologist is “skewed” since he believes that God is the most reasonable answer “to the question of the uncaused cause.” That's fine if you believe this to be the case, but now how about attempting to show this to be the case? How is it that assuming that God is the reasonable answer “to the question of the uncaused cause,” skewed logic? And again, there is no mention of any philosophers, no examples of such taking placing, nothing. We’re just supposed to believe what you say. Well given your reputation so far of misrepresenting arguments and positions, why should I trust you here?

So after you’ve made assertion after assertion with no qualification, you now want me to not only show, but to prove something to be the case? Very well. First, I don’t believe that I can “prove” anything since proof is person relative and one can deny anything, even his own existence. However, I can show something via argumentation. But you’ll need to clarify what exactly it is that you are asking. Second, if the Bible is 100% accurate in all historical references, then you’ll need to show why it isn’t divine instead of human in origin given the claims that are made in it. Third why don’t you prove to me, or at least show, that God doesn’t exist? Keep in mind that the sentence “You can’t prove a universal negative” means “there exist no one who can prove a universal negative,” which is a universal negative. Also keep in mind that the “burden of proof” argument only holds if you and I share the exact same world view with the exception of my added belief in God. But this, of course, is not the case. Your denial of the existent of God leads to many positive assertions regarding metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Your claim in ethics, for example, would have to be that there is absolute morality.

First, you’re begging the question since if Christianity is true, then it is not the case that “It’s all the same bunch of supernaturalistic quackery.” But since the truth of Christianity is what’s in question here, you should not be begging that question.

Even if Christianity is false, is still isn’t the case that it is the same as other pagan religions of the past. There were for example, no other pagan religions that claimed to have a deity that was put to shame and killed, than resurrected physically. Set aside from that, there are many claims that Christianity makes that are unique.

Third, empty assertions. Need I say more?

Perhaps you will see where I’m coming from if I alter this quote a little:

For centuries it was the atheists who held science back, held progress back and pushed their bloody agenda forward. Bottom line: atheism is another form of belief system which espouses the non-existence of the supernatural and provides ZERO viable evidence for such except for pseudo-science and emotion-pricking.

I can assert whatever I want, and make whomever I want look like the bad guy, so long as (A) I don’t back it up, or if I do, I back it up with dubious claims and (B)at least some of my readers are uncritical.

I disagree, but please elaborate. What do you mean?

Yes I do.

Partially, but not entirely. And that’s not only a view of presuppositionalism. A reformed evidentialist, such as R.C. Sproul, will probably believe the same thing.

No I don’t merely presuppose God. Second I believe a reason for presupposing the triune God of the Bible is that He is the precondition of intelligibility. I believe that presupposing Him is the only way in which one can make sense of the world.

 

I disagree with some of what you write here, however, the point is that I’m not trying to solve any problem. Since I am a presuppositonalist it should come as no surprise that I believe that ultimately everyone argues for their world view in circular fashion (although I will admit that the circularity of, say, the Christian world view, is somewhat different from the “A therefore A” fallacy). I am only pointing out how even an atheist uses faith.

I actually find it quite odd that you admit the circularity in affirming the reliability of sense perception from within your world view, yet you still believe that it is reasonable to believe it to be the case that sensory perception is reliable. But if it’s fallacious it’s not reasonable. That you cannot help but to believe your senses (whether or not that is the case) doesn’t not make them reliable. Also, how is it reasonable to except the senses when given a choice to either or accept or reject them? Hmm…perhaps we’ve reached, or are about to reach an impasse for now, but I am still interested in your answers.

Also, if you don’t like the word axiom then I can use something else. I think that in some cases it is easier to understand just what I am talking about when the word “axiom” is used since one will probably already have a working understanding of rationalism.

 

Bottom Line: You presuppose the existence of a concept which is foreign to reason or logic by PRESUPPOSING the existence of the supernatural without ANY kind of viable evidence, PRESUPPOSING a being called "God" without any kind of viable evidence, PRESUPPOSING atheism to be a "belief system" which has to disprove your entity in order to be correct. This is a logical fallacy.

1- Give us any example of the existence of the supernatural that can be tested and declared "supernatural" and not just an unsolved mystery.

2- Give us any example of the existence of "God"-- the supernatural omni-max being.

AND THEN... we'll discuss this as an option which could be used as an explanation to anything unexplained.

3- My belief system is not atheism. Atheism is a non-belief in your belief. My belief system would be more along the lines of humanism. But, I don't make any outrageous claims in humanism that cannot be verified in some form.

Presupposing "God" or the "supernatural" IS what various superstitious cultures and religions have done for CENTURIES. You need to read more about ancient cultures and their beliefs. "Volcano gods" were just a ONE example of how people fill the gaps with their supernatural voodoo.

How about Christians for centuries who believed the sun revolved around the earth or that the earth was flat...etc..etc. You know the spill.

So, give us some reason to believe that your "supernatural God" exists. Not necessarily concrete evidence, but just MORE reason to believe than not to.

That ought to be easy for you.

 

They can't, just as a scientist can't prove that God is not the cause of all 'natural' behaviors. Neither side can prove the other wrong, because God veils God's self until someone is ready to percieve God.

If God has not shown you yet, you are not ready. Only God can show you, and only when you are ready. If you try to get ready, it will hasten the time that God can reveal God's self to you.

Me.

 

There's an old saying, "It's easy to criticize." This is particularly true of philosophy. But let's not pretend that you have no positive philosophy to advance and that it is somehow immune to criticism simply because it fits under the label of "presuppositionalism." You still have to hold your own philosophy up to the same scrutiny as you have mine. Also, you have not yet shown that common-sense and faith are one in the same.

It's actually not as uncommon or ill-conceived as you make it out to sound. All of the arguments I have given have been advanced in one form or another by philosophers such as Thomas Reid, J. C. C. Smart, Nelson Goodman, and Hans Reichenbach. This is no appeal to authority. It's just for your own information.

My case has two points, that (i) all justifications of inferences, be they deductive, inductive, or abductive, are circular, and that (ii) belief in such inferences is not a matter of faith but of common sense. You seem to accept one, but I have one more argument that should disspell any lingering doubt.

To my knowledge, this argument was first conceived of by Carnap, and it introduces the terms "rule-based circularity" as opposed to "premise-based circularity." Premise circularity is the standard, text-book example of begging the question. The conclusion is assumed as a premise. Rule circularity, on the other hand, is when the conclusion of an argument is of the form "x is reliable," where "x" is a rule of inference but when the conclusion can only be drawn by the use of x. As I think I have shown, the justification of any rule of inference is circular. They just happen to be rule-circular. Now this opens the door wide open to let in all kinds of invalid inferences. Descartes' ontological argument, for example, is rule-circular. The advantage is that we can pick and choose which rules of inference we want to take as valid. By what standard? Carnap never said. But it seems reasonable that we should only accept rule-circular inferences that we cannot help but believe are valid. You've said that you don't like this sort of argument, but, to its credit, it does allow us to distinguish between faith, which is chosen, and common sense, which is immutable, human nature.

To answer your other question about the "choice" to accept or reject sense-data, I already covered it in my last post. The answer is that there is no "choice" to speak of. I'll paste the argument again.

"[W]hen faced with the decision either to accept or reject our senses, it is only reasonable to accept them. If we accept our sense-data as accurate, then knowledge is possible. If we do not, then no knowledge is possible. But if this is the case, then the proposition "No knowledge is possible," cannot be known. This is the inherent contradiction of skepticism. So, there is really no "choice" to speak of, at all."

There's no need. I have at least a rough understanding of what you mean that can be cleared up when we get there. It seems that your use of the word "axiom" is synonymous with "first principle." My confusion was due simply to the fact that this definition is looser than the precise, mathematical definition of "axiom."

 

Tell again what God is known to you?

 

This is just too easy, Common Sense.

There is no way Asskov or Jatom can comprehend this until they realize that you don't just "assume" the existence of Sky Daddy and try to work from that point forward.

You and nor I will get anywhere with a presuppositionalist and Asskov (whatever the hell he is).

 

"God" is one of the words I use for one conciousness, the supreme truth. It is everywhere, both beyond time and space, and within time and space. It is living out all the lives of all living forms... the feeling that there is anything seperate and the sense of seperate self, is part of the illussionary dream that the one conciousness wills itself to get caught in, yet part of it, the transendental aspect always remains aware, the eternal witness, that knows all, sees all of itself.

This is the truth that I know, am aware of, and currently am experiencing the presence of here and now.

I am a beginner in knowing this truth, as one merges more and more with this supreme wisdom, more details about the illussion are revealed, to the point where you can know any bit of information about anyone or anything. This all depends on how tuned in one is to the one conciousness as opposed to caught in ego and its various trips and sensations.

 

No, you accept the possibility and test it.

As long as you ignore the logic of what I say, you will not get anywhere.

 

Why?

Because when we take that 'leap of faith' we become re-born into an existential State of Being, a State of Nature.

Like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden we are NOT alienated by the object-subject separation that separates the knower from the known in our civilized State of Knowledge.

Rather, we enter a state of wholistic oneness where every experience is lived in the eternal moment, and our lives flow in the natural perfection of childlike spontaneity.

Judeo-Christianity is the psychotic denials of degenerates falling further down the pit of anal-retentive worldly civilization, while claiming the delusion of being born-again in an existential leap of faith.

Much like the psychotic claims of President Bush.

 

There's a manner of faith that transcends reason and another that denies reason.


One comes from having let reason take you to the edge of the precipice and then taking one more step.

The other comes from turning your back on the precipice and just deciding to settle for whatever the preachers tell you.

The first kind doesn't deny reason, it only acknowledges it's limits.

The latter has to deny reason or admit that at some point we started walking backwards.
---Some Dead Chinese Guy.

 

The Garden of Eden is an ancient pre-Hebraic metaphor for Heaven on Earth before eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

Where those who don't know, are the only ones who do know.

Where to know the wind, one must be the wind.

Where in this State of Being, knowledge is nothing more than a by-product.

An Edenic State, where one totally accepts one's reality without questions.

Where, when the Tiger leaps, I don't stop to question, I accept and move?

And where, when the Tiger is NOT leaping, I don't stop to question, I accept, I already know, I'm gone.

Total reason appears the instant one totally stops looking.

Seeking reasons separates one from faith in reality.

Alienates one from reality.

Judeo-Christianity is the story of Alienation.

A story where GOD is a metaphor for you and I when we take that born-again leap of faith.

 

Let’s not forget the topic of discussion here, my positive claim has been made. Namely, that everybody to include the atheist uses faith, to which you to disagree, and are criticizing. I used belief in the reliability of sensory perception as my example, and this has been where our focus has settled.

Three things here:

First, don’t forget that by your own criterion, faith is any belief which is not grounded in reason. You can point out that the reasoning process is circular, however, even if that is the case it does not change your definition of what “faith” is (although I admit that since I can’t find any place in which you explicitly define “faith” I have to go with what appears to be implicit in your posts). That is, if faith is defined as any belief which is itself not grounded in rationality, then pointing out the circularity of the reasoning process itself changes nothing for the circularity of your belief in the reliability of the senses.

Second, let’s not also forget that I wholeheartedly agree that I have and use faith (in both senses) and therefore probably in many cases (although I would have to take things on a case by case basis) pointing out where I use faith isn’t going to be much of a problem for me. The question is whether you use faith.

And third, I fully agree that reasoning from particular to universal, an appeal to deduction, and affirming the consequent/denying the anecdote , insofar as they are used to validate themselves, are all circular from within the framework of your world view. And indeed, I would even argue that rationality isn’t even possible given this framework. However if the vary foundation for rationality is found within God--if the reasoning process is a reflection of His thinking--then no circularity arises.

Hmm. I would actually think that “epistemic circularity” is more relevant than rule circularity here. Are you using this as an argument for he senses or rationality or both?

I’ll take that into consideration next time.

Later!

 

How so? Please explain.

How do you know that I have no viable evidence? What constitutes “viable” evidence? Under whose or what’s authority is this standard, “viable,” imposed on evidence?

ditto

Well, I did give my reason why. Atheism is a complete world view that makes many positive claims. And just like any other world view, it needs to be argued for. Now, if you disagree with this, fine. At least do me the favor of showing me why you disagree. It is not enough to simply state your disagreement in this case. Also, when did I ever presuppose that atheism is a belief system? Looks like you are the one presupposing things.

How so? Please explain.

Tested how? By the scientific method? Still making demands I see. Were you even going to answer anything from last post?

You want an example of His existence? That doesn’t make much sense to me. You still haven’t shown any evidence of His nonexistence.

I don’t understand elaborate

So you are not an atheist then?

That's nothing but a play on words. Christianity is just the non-belief of the non-belief-claim of atheism, therefore the burden of proof is on you

Good

…and, so…what?

Ok…

Who? How is this relevant to the truth or falsity of Christianity

Like I said before, I believe God is the precondition of intelligibility. Without Him you could not think, talk, breath, and indeed, you wouldn’t even exist. For as the Act 17:28 says, "In him we live and move and have our being."

 

Apparently you do not see the hypocrisy?