The argumentation of modern popular discourse

[Tranquil Bondservant]

For the mods reading though this mentions evolution I only use it as an example. This has to do with argumentation, not necessarily the topic of Creation. For everyone else please forgive my frequent hyperbole.

A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:

Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?

A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time

B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time

C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time

D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life

E) All of the above

Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.

How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For the mods reading though this mentions evolution I only use it as an example. This has to do with argumentation, not necessarily the topic of Creation. For everyone else please forgive my frequent hyperbole.

A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:

Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?

A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time

B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time

C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time

D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life

E) All of the above

Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.

How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?

You probably need to go ask the atheists who adhere to Philosophical Naturalism rather than your fellow Christians.

And since this is the "Christian" Philosophy and Ethics section, I don't think you're going to get an answer since, even if some of us (like me) are evolutionists, we're all still going to land somewhere on the 'creationist' spectrum. As far as I know, we all think the Lord's Hand brought about the existence of life on earth in one way or another.

Peace!
2PhiloVoid

 

[stevevw]

For the mods reading though this mentions evolution I only use it as an example. This has to do with argumentation, not necessarily the topic of Creation. For everyone else please forgive my frequent hyperbole.

A way in which the world & people operate and those with ignorant, misguided or malevolent desires exploit you is by offering you boxed questions. Logical systems that contain only non sequiturs. So for example in regards to the origin of life, intelligent design is disregarded due to preconceived notions that are logically coherent with evolution. If you deny this tyrant that is the dogma of our modern day you are lambasted and seen as logically incoherent. Nobody stops to consider that the initial assumption may have more than one logical conclusion or that the logical conclusion drawn may not be congruent with the initial proposition. This isn’t even to mention that the accuracy of scientific hypotheses with the most support is dependent upon current technology and methodologies. The same way you wouldn’t view a person who lived 10,000 years ago as stupid for thinking that the world was flat because of the nature of his technological lens that he’s able to view the world through. But let’s get back to the example of the origin of life. I would like to ask you the question:

Why is evolution the best way to determine the origin of life?

A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time

B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time

C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time

D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life

E) All of the above

Have you noticed something? Every answer I gave has nothing to do with the origin of life. Not a single one tells you how life began, it only tells you how it has grown or functions. Even with the reasoning of chance/randomness through a large quantity of time that is offered in the option of (B) & (C), it does not explain how life began at all. How life came from non life or even how that non life came into existence. The pillar under all of this is the assumption that evolution can explain the origin of life, when in actual reality all it can tell you is how we descended (& changed) from the first life.

How does stuff like this happen? How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?

As you highlighted its because of an assumption that life must have come about by some materialistic process due to the perceived success in evolution.

But this does not discount that there may have been some natural laws or Mind behind the creation of life in the first place which also coded for the evolution of life. Its not about the physical processes but how those physical processes have non-physical laws that govern its creation. These cannot be reduced to material processes.

 

[stevevw]

In fact I think the ingredients for the creation of life were coded in from the beginning. I recall reading a quote from Robert Dicke a colleague of John Wheeler (Wheeler's delayed choice experiment) which sums this up.

“If you want an observer around, and if you want life, you need heavy elements. To make heavy elements out of hydrogen, you need thermonuclear combustion. To have thermonuclear combustion, you need a time of cooking in a star of several billion years. In order to stretch out several billion years in its time dimension, the universe, according to general relativity, must be several years across in its space dimensions. So why is the universe as big as it is? Because we are here!”

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Thanks for the engagement fellas but it was more about the logical systems based on non sequiturs (or obvious issues with the reasoning used) in argumentation that occurs extremely frequently in common popular discourse. You could replace the evolution example with relative morality and a society unhinged from something with the ability to justify the belief of moral truths/absolutes and yet the primary disagreement you'll find amongst the lay atheist is an emotional one, the importance of sentimentality (the traditional definition: feelings as a guide to truth) in a culture which has absolutely no logical framework for not only measuring the importance of feelings but also the lack of a reason for their primacy, you could replace it with the idea of naturalism leaving you with inherent determinism or then there's the circular reasoning of why reasoning & logic are authoritative under a materialistic premise (they assume themselves) and then basing all arguments upon that shaky foundation & etc. The list could go on & on of a fragile perception of reality that has so many holes in it that you would have thought it would have sunk by now, let alone gain any of the traction and hold it has. I guess in the end I, or rather any of us, should not be surprised by this given the example we're given of the effects of moral relativity on a society in the book of Judges (Judges 17:6).

You probably need to go ask the atheists who adhere to Philosophical Naturalism rather than your fellow Christians.

I have engaged in this many times (more so on other message boards) but it always results in nebulous metaphysical claims to something like a multiverse or a vague ontology which has absolutely no basis in a naturalistic framework. It's like they only desire the possibility of Atheism rather than actually believing it and following through on any of the reasoning for it. There's also another issue with the framework as it denies the immaterial and then touts moral superiority (or a morality in general) as if morals and the information required to recognise them are matter or have physical properties. How do you get off the ground to philosophically discuss these things when the position of naturalism/materialism refutes itself with quite literally the first thought?

But this does not discount that there may have been some natural laws or Mind behind the creation of life in the first place which also coded for the evolution of life. Its not about the physical processes but how those physical processes have non-physical laws that govern its creation. These cannot be reduced to material processes.

Yeah I'm not apposed to evolution but I also have no problem accounting for the age of everything (due to evolution being based upon time) with the idea that God created everything mature, there's a Biblical basis for it in the example of the creation of Adam & Eve.

 

[public hermit]

A) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of adaptation over a large quantity of time

B) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of it’s occurrence by chance through a large quantity of time

C) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to the nature of its occurrence by chance & due to the evidence drawn from the fossil record and its consistency with the hypothesis of genetic adaptation over a large quantity of time

D) Evolution best explains the beginning of life due to it’s ability to out compete every other hypothesis in regards to the origin of life

E) All of the above

This not a great example. I can assure you, a good many atheists on this site will agree that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life (we've seen it before). Instead of presenting some faux scenario, you should post something on the open debate forum for Ethics. Present a question you have seen argued with non-sequiturs and see how it goes. If you can make your point there about sentimentality, I'll be convinced.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

This not a great example. I can assure you, a good many atheists on this site will agree that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life (we've seen it before). Instead of presenting some faux scenario, you should post something on the open debate forum for Ethics. Present a question you have seen argued with non-sequiturs and see how it goes. If you can make your point there about sentimentality, I'll be convinced.

What you quoted wasn't meant to be exhaustive, it was to point to the actual point I made & question I asked "How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?". Which is what the thread was about. I probably could have been clearer in the way I presented it, my bad.

 

[public hermit]

What you quoted wasn't meant to be exhaustive, it was to point to the actual point I made & question I asked "How does the origin of life get tied in with evolution in the minds of the modern soul?". Which is what the thread was about. I probably could have been clearer in the way I presented it, my bad.

I see. I misunderstood your point.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I see. I misunderstood your point.

I've always had a problem with being verbose with writing and it makes it hard to be clear sometimes, so it's not on you. I also just thought I'd mention that I have argued regarding sentimentality in regards to subjective morality and it seems entirely fruitless due to the presuppositions held about morality within naturalism.

Here are a couple of examples:
This one is about the arbitrariness of morality under the aforementioned logical systems/frameworks

Subjective truth

More on the assumptions or inability to say why certain morals are correct (the sentimentality point)

The epistemological source of morality

The nature of immateriality within naturalism using the example of mathematics (Edit: I called morality material here by accident but I meant everything in existence when I said material)

There's more there if you want it but I stopped responding after a while because repeating yourself over & over gets incredibly frustrating.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have engaged in this many times (more so on other message boards) but it always results in nebulous metaphysical claims to something like a multiverse or a vague ontology which has absolutely no basis in a naturalistic framework. It's like they only desire the possibility of Atheism rather than actually believing it and following through on any of the reasoning for it. There's also another issue with the framework as it denies the immaterial and then touts moral superiority (or a morality in general) as if morals and the information required to recognise them are matter or have physical properties. How do you get off the ground to philosophically discuss these things when the position of naturalism/materialism refutes itself with quite literally the first thought?

I've engaged quite a few atheists over the years and I do notice that some of them are charged for verbal combat. Not all of them are this way, but some of them prepare for pure confrontation and refutation.. This preference for atheism often comes from the sheer fact that they are former Christians who feel that they were either harangued by overly stringent doctrines or suffered verbal abuse (sometimes even physical abuse) at their former churches.

Add to this the efficacy of math and science along with whatever deconstruction they've gone through in their understanding of the Bible, and you're basically going to be engaging folks who will rely upon their felt perceptions about the failures of Christianity and refuse to check out any alternatives in a serious manner.

Not that I blame them really, though. The world looks fairly 'natural' to me too.

Just remember that human emotions are a part of the human process of deliberation, so if a person has experienced trauma from religious ideas and from religious people, no amount of appeal to logic, epistemology or metaphysics is going to draw them in to a point where they'll fully engage.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I've engaged quite a few atheists over the years and I do notice that some of them are charged for verbal combat. Not all of them are this way, but some of them prepare for pure confrontation and refutation.. This preference for atheism often comes from the sheer fact that they are former Christians who feel that they were either harangued by overly stringent doctrines or suffered verbal abuse (sometimes even physical abuse) at their former churches.

Add to this the efficacy of math and science along with whatever deconstruction they've gone through in their understanding of the Bible, and you're basically going to be engaging folks who will rely upon their felt perceptions about the failures of Christianity and refuse to check out any alternatives in a serious manner.

Not that I blame them really, though. The world looks fairly 'natural' to me too.

Just remember that human emotions are a part of the human process of deliberation, so if a person has experienced trauma from religious ideas and from religious people, no amount of appeal to logic, epistemology or metaphysics is going to draw them in to a point where they'll fully engage.

As somebody who has experienced proper trauma and was debilitated from it for over a decade I find that the definition of trauma has gotten really, really loose. But I do understand the sentiment and I find that when you come against this (atheistic zeal of the convert) that the dusting off of your sandals and moving on is often not only the better move but also the more compassionate.

Also just as an aside we should toss out the word deconstruction and replace it with the traditional word of apostasy because that's what it is. When I was an Atheist for 7 or so years I didn't "deconstruct" I apostasised and rejected The Being who sustains existence, I'm just extremely glad that He didn't reject me .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As somebody who has experienced proper trauma and was debilitated from it for over a decade I find that the definition of trauma has gotten really, really loose. But I do understand the sentiment and I find that when you come against this (atheistic zeal of the convert) that the dusting off of your sandals and moving on is often not only the better move but also the more compassionate.

Also just as an aside we should toss out the word deconstruction and replace it with the traditional word of apostasy because that's what it is. When I was an Atheist for 7 or so years I didn't "deconstruct" I apostasised and rejected The Being who sustains existence, I'm just extremely glad that He didn't reject me .

Many of us have experienced trauma in one way or another, and as you've implied, it can be quite debilitating. As for the definition of trauma, I'd more or less treat this as a term to apply in a clinical context to be vetted out in terms of the DSM, so for me its accuracy in application depends on the extent that a person has been diagnosed as such by a professional psychologist/psychiatrist. The problem here is that there are quite a few instances where your atheistic interlocutor does not state up front before engaging by saying, "Hey, I just want you to know-----I've been through the emotional ringer with church/family/personal hangups, so I'm not really at an emotional place to peacefully treat this discussion with any respect." So, maybe take each individual 'atheist' as an individual and give them some benefit of the doubt as to their actual motivations for talking to you about "reasons for faith."

I agree with you that the current use of "deconstruction" is a bit overplayed and I think it all too easily gets conflated with the PostModern concept of the same term that we'd find with philosophers like Derrida. It's not exactly the same thing, and it doesn't automatically qualify as applied Critical Thinking/Rationality/Logic, etc. Today's colloquial deconstruction too often just means 'stepping away and being critical.'

However, being that we're dealing with fellow human beings who are not clones, I'm hesitant to all too quickly label them as "apostates." That is a term that I only apply to those who seem to know that I know that they know what and why they're saying what they're saying. Otherwise, if someone tells me that he's an atheist, I assume this state of his current thinking could be along a continuum with 1,001 different personal and epistemic reasons as to why he feels this way.

As for your own personal experience, I'm glad you were able to find the light of Christ. That's awesome!

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Many of us have experienced trauma in one way or another, and as you've implied, it can be quite debilitating. As for the definition of trauma, I'd more or less treat this as a term to apply in a clinical context to be vetted out in terms of the DSM, so for me its accuracy in application depends on the extent that a person has been diagnosed as such by a professional psychologist/psychiatrist. The problem here is that there are quite a few instances where your atheistic interlocutor does not state up front before engaging by saying, "Hey, I just want you to know-----I've been through the emotional ringer with church/family/personal hangups, so I'm not really at an emotional place to peacefully treat this discussion with any respect." So, maybe take each individual 'atheist' as an individual and give them some benefit of the doubt as to their actual motivations for talking to you about "reasons for faith."

I agree with you that the current use of "deconstruction" is a bit overplayed and I think it all too easily gets conflated with the PostModern concept of the same term that we'd find with philosophers like Derrida. It's not exactly the same thing.

However, being that we're dealing with fellow human beings who are not clones, I'm hesitant to all too quickly label them as "apostates." That is a term that I only apply to those who seem to know that I know that they know what and why they're saying what they're saying. Otherwise, if someone tells me he an atheist, I assume this state of their current thinking could be along a continuum with a 1,001 different personal and epistemic reasons as to why they feel this way.

As for your own person experience, I'm glad you were able to find the light of Christ. That's awesome!

More like Christ found me . I think there's an issue when you start playing by the world's rulebook, if you're going to comport to the DSM and use it as a source then you would have to in order to be consistent, agree with it's definitions of transgenderism/gender dysphoria. You see where I'm going with this.
I'm sure you're familiar with Greg Bahnsen so I'll spare you the reasoning, but I find as the world becomes more and more (for lack of a better term) anti-Christian definitional, that his rallying cry of Proverbs 26:5 is become far more relevant. When you start conforming yourself to the defintion of the DSM instead of for example the aforementioned verse, not only do you conform yourself to it's limitations but you also may be in conflict with the thing you believe. Apostoate was as wholly applicable to me as it would be to a former Christian & now Atheist that you're talking to, that doesn't mean that you need to name call but the flowering of language to the point where it's borderline liquid allows the person you're talking to to not see the actuality of what has occurred (Apostasy).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

More like Christ found me . I think there's an issue when you start playing by the world's rulebook, if you're going to comport to the DSM and use it as a source then you would have to in order to be consistent, agree with it's definitions of transgenderism/gender dysphoria. You see where I'm going with this.

The direction to which you're alluding is understandable, but I think there is some latitude for a Christian to handle something like the DSM-5 and still follow Christ. Using a professional reference as a source doesn't commit a person like myself who isn't a professional psychologist to an Either/Or paradigm, and we don't have to go the whole way with its current (and provisional) definitions. You're right to imply that a Christian who works in the field of psychology would have to abide by the rules of the APA to be consistent in their own practice and thereby maintain their license, but that doesn't mean he or she has to become a card-carrying Humanist or a Philosophical Naturalist to be 'consistent.'

So, no. There's more epistemic wiggle room in this, and just as I took my own mother's Schizophrenia very seriously, and I did so according to the DSM diagnosis that psychiatrists of her era gave her, I would do so now too if and when I encounter those persons who express they have experienced trauma (even 'religious trauma'). Besides, the Bible doesn't address some issues that we only now know about and deal with in the current, modern world, and it's best to not treat the Bible as a science textbook or as a manual for 'all things human.' No, even the Bible has its limits.

And what does this mean for your and my engagements with atheists? It means to me that we should take their claims of trauma seriously, but also wisely discern the variable qualities of their traumas and of any other bad experiences they may have had 'in the Church.' We don't want to end up bullying and badgering folks who are already, like some of us, feeling damage from other Christians.

I'm sure you're familiar with Greg Bahnsen so I'll spare you the reasoning, but I find as the world becomes more and more (for lack of a better term) anti-Christian definitional, that his rallying cry of Proverbs 26:5 is become far more relevant. When you start conforming yourself to the defintion of the DSM instead of for example the aforementioned verse, not only do you conform yourself to it's limitations but you also may be in conflict with the thing you believe. Apostoate was as wholly applicable to me as it would be to a former Christian & now Atheist that you're talking to, that doesn't mean that you need to name call but the flowering of language to the point where it's borderline liquid allows the person you're talking to to not see the actuality of what has occurred (Apostasy).

Yes, I'm familiar with Greg Bahnsen. I hadn't yet heard that his rallying cry was Proverbs 26:5. Being that he was a Theonomist, though, I'm not surprised. While I can get testy with atheists (or with anyone for that matter ) on rational, philosophical grounds, I'm not going to treat each atheist as if he/she is simply an apathetic fool or that they are nothing more than a potential practice session for some renegade spiritual warfare.

It is true that some folks do apostasize from the Christian faith. Some of them do so with their wits intact and in full understanding of what they're doing when doing so. There are others, however, who have suffered and are confused. I think it's best to see their humanity first and let that rule the conversaton rather than trying to convince them of further failure that their churches may have alrady heaped upon their heads.

Then, too, sometimes as Christians, we don't always really know what we claim or think we know as 'truth' and we trudge ahead in an undiscerning manner, causing more damage as we go. So, when you or I engage folks for so-called apologetic purposes, we need to be not only smarter, but more self aware of our own limitations. We're not here to change the world. That's the Lord's job.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The direction to which you're alluding is understandable, but I think there is some latitude for a Christian to handle something like the DSM-5 and still follow Christ. Using a professional reference as a source doesn't commit a person like myself who isn't a professional psychologist to an Either/Or paradigm, and we don't have to go the whole way with its current (and provisional) definitions. You're right to imply that a Christian who works in the field of psychology would have to abide by the rules of the APA to be consistent in their own practice and thereby maintain their license, but that doesn't mean he or she has to become a card-carrying Humanist or a Philosophical Naturalist to be 'consistent.'

So, no. There's more epistemic wiggle room in this, and just as I took my own mother's Schizophrenia very seriously, and I did so according to the DSM diagnosis that psychiatrist of her era gave her, I would do so now too if and when I encounter those persons who express they have trauma (even 'religious trauma'). Besides, the Bible doesn't address some issues that we only now know about and deal with in the current, modern world, and it's best to not treat the Bible as a science textbook or a manual for 'all things human.'

And what does this mean for your and my engagements with atheists? It means to me that we should take their claims of trauma seriously, but also wisely discern the variable qualities of their traumas and of any other bad experiences they may have had 'in the Church.' We don't want to end up bullying and badgering folks who are already, like some of us, feeling damage from other Christians.




Yes, I'm familiar with Greg Bahnsen. I hadn't yet heard that his rallying cry was Proverbs 26:5. Being that he was a Theonomist, though, I'm not surprised. While I can get testy with atheists (or with anyone for that matter ) on rational, philosophical grounds, I'm not going to treat each atheist as if he/she is simply an apathetic fool or that they are nothing more than a potential practice session for some renegade spiritual warfare.

It is true that some folks do apostasize from the Christian faith. Some of them do so with their wits intact and in full understanding of what they're doing when doing so. There are others, however, who have suffered and are confused. I think it's best to see their humanity first and that let rule the conversaton rather than trying to convince them of further failure that their churches may have alrady heaped upon their heads.

Then, too, sometimes as Christians, we don't always really know what we claim or think we know as 'truth' and we trudge ahead in an undiscerning manner, causing more damage as we go. So, when you or I engage folks for so-called apologetic purposes, we need to be not only smarter, but more self aware of our own limitations. We're not here to change the world.

I was simply going to like and move onward as I agree with the bulk of what you have said & accept correction where I'm in error but I would never forgive myself for giving the wrong impression of the 'rallying cry'. When Bahnsen uses Proverbs 26:5 He's talking about it presuppositionally. For example: in as much you play by the rules of naturalism, you'll make them your ultimate authority as apposed to the presupposition of The Bible being true (because all worldviews are circular). Not necessarily calling Atheists fools. He uses the verse correctly in this, that if you use the reasoning of the fool you will be like him.

My sympathies for your mother, you'll be in my prayers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was simply going to like and move onward as I agree with the bulk of what you have said but I would never forgive myself for giving the wrong impression of the 'rallying cry'. When Bahnsen uses Proverbs 26:5 He's talking about it presuppositionally. For example: in as much you play by the rules of naturalism, you'll make them your ultimate authority as apposed to the presupposition of The bible being true (because all worldviews are circular). Not necessarily calling Atheists fools. He uses the verse correctly in this, that if you use the reasoning of the fool you will be like him.

My sympathies for your mother, you'll be in my prayers.

I have to disagree with you about the nature of presuppositions and their apparent, seeming places in paradigms and worldviews. Sometimes, they're not really what we think they are. Or they're not necessarily up to the substance that we wish they could be. But that's life. It's also a learning curve for most of us, one that we learn to surf on as we go.

I appreciate your sympathies and prayers. I can do the same. But just know that in all of that, my Existentialist and Subjective sensibilites remain intact.

Sincerely in the faith,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I have to disagree with you about the nature of presuppositions and their apparent, seeming places in paradigms and worldviews. Sometimes, they're not really what we think they are. Or they're not necessarily up to the substance that we wish they could be. But that's life. It's also a learning curve for most of us, one that we learn to surf on as we go.

I appreciate your sympathies and prayers. I can do the same. But just know that in all of that, my Existentialist and Subjective sensibilites remain intact.

Sincerely in the faith,
2PhiloVoid

My friend it is through reason we are able to recognise Yahweh as God, yet in order to do so we assume the truth of reason. We are inherently circular, yet because of our belief in God we are able to justify our use of reason. Whereas the materialist/naturalist has no such recourse. In order to first form a thought you need to presuppose you yourself exist. You can't escape presuppositions (which is why the apologetic is so effective).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My friend it is through reason we are able to recognise Yahweh as God, yet in order to do so we assume the truth of reason. We are inherently circular, yet because of our belief in God we are able to justify our use of reason. Whereas the materialist/naturalist has no such recourse. In order to first form a thought you need to presuppose you yourself exist. You can't escape presuppositions (which is why the apologetic is so effective).

It's actually not, TB. And I don't have to go the way of Cornelius Van Til and stumble to know that there are epistemic cracks in any Foundation.

So, with that, even as much as I have enjoyed reading Josh McDowell's works or similar apologists over the years, I know that both you and I don't know enough nor that we actually have the objective substance that we all wish we did, and this is even so where our trust in the Bible is concerned.

It's just the way it is. But it's ok. Jesus is still Jesus.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It's actually not, TB. And I don't have to go the way of Cornelius Van Till and stumble to know that there are epistemic cracks in any Foundation.

So, with that, even as much as I have enjoyed reading Josh McDowell's works or similar apologists over the years, I know that both you and I don't know enough nor that we actually have the objective substance that we all wish we did, and this is even so where our trust in the Bible is concerned.

It's just the way it is. But it's ok. Jesus is still Jesus.

It's not so much as epistemic cracks in any foundation as it is epistemic cracks in every foundation. It's a recognition of our limitation and ultimately when you get down to it, it's an appeal to mystery. It just points out the fact that the non-Theistic side has absolutely zero justification for their foundation of belief.

I heartily give you a southern baptist "HAYMEN" to your last sentence .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not so much as epistemic cracks in any foundation as it is epistemic cracks in every foundation. It's a recognition of our limitation and ultimately when you get down to it, it's an appeal to mystery. It just points out the fact that the non-Theistic side has absolutely zero justification for their foundation of belief.

I wouldn't conclude that the non-Theistic side has absolutely zero justification for its outlook. To do so would be an exaggeration. It would also be a non-sequitur.

I heartily give you a southern baptist "HAYMEN" to your last sentence .

Bro, I wish you all the luck in engaging with 'the atheists.' They're over there, just waiting to hear from you!