Question for presups...

[devolved]

To equivocate belief in elves, big foot, loch ness, etc. with belief in God is to suggest a worldview can be, indeed should be centered around that belief. Hence it is an equivocation fallacy

It is not for people who don't believe in God for specified reasons that are equivalent.

Divine hiddennes is a viable problem.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It is not for people who don't believe in God for specified reasons that are equivalent.

Divine hiddennes is a viable problem.

Divine hiddennes is an assumption of your worldview, not the Christian worldview.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

According to the Christian worldview, the evidence from creation is sufficient to leave men without excuse.

This is rather unsophisticated question, nevertheless, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's really a question of causality involving two genders, male and female. Without both, there cannot be one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Divine hiddennes is an assumption of your worldview, not the Christian worldview.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

According to the Christian worldview, the evidence from creation is sufficient to leave men without excuse.

This is rather unsophisticated question, nevertheless, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's really a question of causality involving two genders, male and female. Without both, there cannot be one.

I'd have to side with those who ponder why God is so hidden. In fact, if there is one thing that seems not so clear, it's Paul's epistemic injunction in Romans 1 about how God's "invisible attributes" are able to be clearly seen, while elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul gives us another metaphor and tells us that we spiritually "see" Christ only through a dim reflection--that that part of our understanding is still unclear.

So, I do think there is something to be said about the problem of God's Divine Hiddenness, that it is indeed a real and live problem. In fact, if I understand Jesus correctly as well, and I think I do, God also has His hand on the dial that controls our ability to perceive Him.

 

[devolved]

According to the Christian worldview, the evidence from creation is sufficient to leave men without excuse.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

This is rather unsophisticated question, nevertheless, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's really a question of causality involving two genders, male and female. Without both, there cannot be one.

Divine hidenness is obviously not a problem for someone who imagines God everywhere they look. I've seen people in churches who cite finding an affordable mechanic as a miracle deliverance from God, so pointing to something and calling God responsible doesn't really resolve the issue of Divine Hidenness. .

So, first and foremost, you can't invoke subjective interpretation that you arrive with as an axiom as evidence for something that supposed to clearly dispel Divine Hiddenness problem. Of course I see plentiful rationalizations on behalf of theists (I am a theist btw) that tries to dismiss it as a problem, but it doesn't make it a lesser problem.

Secondly, Romans was written to and about ... Romans, who were (poly)theists and who had a pantheon of gods and goddesses, and who already seen the world as created. So, the context of Romans is that these people "although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God". The passage in Romans 1 is not about atheists, which were rare in antiquity. It's about theists who already assumed that the world was created by some God or Gods.

Thirdly, how do you get from "there are genders/sexes" ... therefore God? There's also hermaphroditic life on Earth. What does that mean to you? Is that evidence against God? If hermaphroditic life is not evidence against God, then you shouldn't bring up gender as evidence for. If entire creation is assumed to be evidence for God, then pointing to gender is ... somewhat pointless. There are evolutionary explanations that don't see sex as a chicken/egg problem. And there are plentiful theists who would agree.

The point being... there can be good reasons to not believe in a certain version... or entire concept of Christian God or Christian claims about God, especially given known history of Biblical Christianity. Do you agree or disagree?

For example, we shouldn't believe what any given book says just because it's written in that book. Would that be a good reason to withhold one's belief? You don't automatically believe what any given book says, right? Likewise, you don't care to investigate every religious book written out there. So, it seems to me that Christian belief, or religious belief, is coincidental with one's cultural indoctrination.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So you assume a supernatural God that communicates, and then assume natural methodology

I, for one, don't assume that. Firstly, I don't even think you have a coherent, positive definition of 'supernatural' to begin with, nor an identifiable mechanism by which the supernatural may causally integrate with nature. Secondly, when you assert the existence of the supernatural - something 'outside' the natural order, and entirely different in kind from it - you don't get to take advantage of anything natural to explain how it works or how information about it is gleaned.

You need to establish a 'supernatural' epistemology. And it's not enough to say a god would be capable of communicating directly to you via revelation, such that your senses wouldn't be part of the process.

Even granting a positive, coherent definition of 'supernatural' and a mechanism by which it may causally integrate with nature, you are still left with a lot of groundwork to cover. How do you discern the truth value of one revelation over another? How do you discern a revelation from something you may merely be imagining? If you are receiving testimony about someone else's supposed revelation, how do you discern their revelation from something they may be imagining, or lying about? How do you know there aren't other supernatural beings capable of giving revelation, and that yours isn't from one of them? Even if your god is the only one who can give revelation, how do you know he's not lying? Remember - when you provide your answers, don't invoke anything of the natural order, lest you contradict yourself.

These are just a few of the hurdles you will have to overcome before I could even consider 'borrowing' from your worldview, as your favorite apologetic asserts.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

According to the Christian worldview, the evidence from creation is sufficient to leave men without excuse.

So the assertion is that people who claim to be atheists have a knowledge of this god, but willfully 'suppress' that knowledge. In other words, you've predicated an assertion on the content of my own thoughts, something you have no access to.

Bad move. To disprove this assertion, all I have to do is be aware of at least one person for whom it is not true. It so happens that I am aware of one such person - me. I have no knowledge of any god, Yahweh or otherwise.

An equivalent scenario would be if you claimed to be able to read minds, and stated 'just now, you were thinking of picking apples in an orchard.' Since I have an immediate apprehension of my own thoughts, I am therefor in a position to know, with 100% certainty, if your claim to be able to read minds is true or false. And if I wasn't thinking of picking apples in an orchard, I know for a fact that you do not have the ability you claim to have.

So the very best scenario for you is that you've misinterpreted this passage, and your worldview is false because it depends on this interpretation. The worst scenario is that you are correct in your interpretation, and it's the Bible itself that's false, and your worldview is false because it depends on the Bible being the 'perfect word' of Yahweh.

This is rather unsophisticated question, nevertheless, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, by millions of years.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Not at all. The Big Bang is an event and it was the creation of our universe. The ex nihilo creation was an event that was the creation of our universe.

Firstly, you are equivocating between two meanings of 'creation' here. 'Creation' in the colloquial sense, and 'creation' in the literal, religious sense.

Secondly, apples and tomatoes are both fruit. They are still distinct things.

I continue to fail at seeing any point in what you're arguing here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In epistemology, justification is a process of removeing doubt.

We don't have to remove all doubt to claim knowledge. We can provisionally grant certain claims the "knowledge" status, given that these are more certain than uncertain.

That's what science is in certain context of examination and systematic approach to unknown. Sciencia literally means knowledge.

It seems that now you are backing off your first claim that knowledge is true belief. If there is any uncertainty, it would logically be lacking the ability to know for certain it was true. Science itself began with the presuppositions that objective truth was attainable, that there was an order to the universe and the ability of mankind to comprehend that order. In fact, it still does. Without any of those presuppositions Science could never have developed. Modern Science was founded on this bedrock of Christian thought. Man created in the image of God had the intelligence and logic to comprehend the universe which was designed with an order and regularity of reality, with unity and uniformity of the physical universe by an Intelligent Mind.

Well some things we nominally define so these are nominally axiomatic. For example, I can say that apple is a fruit based on how we define fruit and based on how we define apple.

Some thing we know procedurally. I know how to change breaks on my car, and I can demonstrate that knowledge. I know how to walk, and I know how to type and use this forum. If you have doubts about that... We should not be having this conversation.

It is this self-evident nature which we are considering here. Without the laws of logic we could not being to 'know' what an apple is let alone that it is fruit. We could not be having this conversation.

Some knowledge is provisional based on context in which it is defined. We know that water boils at 100 celcius in context that we consistently repeat the experiment. Thus we can say that in the same context we know that boiling point will not be a 1000 celcius for water.

We don't have to know everything about water to know that fact.

I agree.

I hope you get the point.

It seems a bit unclear from what you said previously.

Likewise, knowledge is not a semantically standalone concept. It's a network of coherent concepts that resides in your brain or some memetic form. For you to know what an apple is there are a web of prerequisites to make that concept coherent.

Laws of Logic transcend our brains, although our brains are necessary to process thought.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Firstly, you are equivocating between two meanings of 'creation' here. 'Creation' in the colloquial sense, and 'creation' in the literal, religious sense.

Secondly, apples and tomatoes are both fruit. They are still distinct things.

I continue to fail at seeing any point in what you're arguing here.

How is the creation of our universe in anyway colloquial?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

How is the creation of our universe in anyway colloquial?

Never said it was.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Never said it was.

You said: Firstly, you are equivocating between two meanings of 'creation' here. 'Creation' in the colloquial sense, and 'creation' in the literal, religious sense.

Is that not what you are saying here?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You said: Firstly, you are equivocating between two meanings of 'creation' here. 'Creation' in the colloquial sense, and 'creation' in the literal, religious sense.

Is that not what you are saying here?

Yes, that is word for word what I said. You are equivocating between two different meanings of 'creation'. With relation to the big bang, it is a colloquial meaning. With relation to your apologetics, it is a literal, religious meaning.

I still fail to see the point in any of this. What exactly are you setting out to demonstrate?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, that is word for word what I said. You are equivocating between two different meanings of 'creation'. With relation to the big bang, it is a colloquial meaning. With relation to your apologetics, it is a literal, religious meaning.

I still fail to see the point in any of this. What exactly are you setting out to demonstrate?

I am failing to see what difference you are making in a literal meaning of creation and a colloquial.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would like to know from devolved, but you are welcome to as well. How is knowledge demonstrable in your estimation.

As in when I say "I know X is true", you don't need to take my word on it. You don't need to accept it at face value.

I can demonstrate it to you and show you that X is true.

So knowledge, is demonstrable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Knowledge is belief that can be justified...how? How does knowledge get justified?


Given this definition, all the knowledge we have of a cell is just a belief because can't cure cancer for instance? If knowledge can't be false, why is it that we have all kinds of 'knowledge' but we can't be sure we have all knowledge of anything? If we can't be sure we attain all of the knowledge of something how could we know if it were 'true knowledge' rather than just a belief?

Having knowledge of a thing, doesn't mean you have ALL knowledge of that thing.
Also, it's in fact because we have knowledge of the cell, that we can even know what cancer is.

Not being able to cure it (not completely true, actually, but I'll roll with it), does not mean our knowledge of the cell is false.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure downplay the integrity of knowledge

I'm not downplaying anything at all. I'm just being intellectually honest.

But actually, every human being that assumes meaningful communication with another human being, assumes laws of logic which are necessarily objective truth with a capital "T".

Disagree. Did you think the laws of logic were found under a rock? Think again. Logic is the result of empirical study, of experience. They are developed and invented by us.

Blow it off as a non-issue, but apathy towards truth does not make it any less relevant to reality.

Now, you are downright misrepresenting what I said. I never said to be apathic towards truth and knowledge. That's what you made of it.

I very much care about what is true. I very much care about accepting as much true things as possible and the least false things as possible.

However, that doesn't mean that those things that I accept as true, can't be false.
That doesn't mean that those things I reject as true, can't turn out to be correct after all.

I don't see the point of pretending to hold absolute truth, while it is in fact logically impossible to hold such truth, since it would require perfect knowledge of EVERYTHING.

All you'll end up with, is closed minded dogmatic thinking.

That "knowledge is tentative" not a problem is a matter of convenience.[/quote

No, it is a matter of honesty and open mindedness. It is a matter of being open to learn new things. It is a matter of realising that what you consider to be true, might be wrong (how unlikely it even might seem at this moment).

For when a Christian who happens to be a Scientist or knowledgeable in the Sciences, does not agree with mainstream Science, "knowledge is tentative" and no atheist claims to have knowledge that can be qualified as objective truth, suddenly the apathy goes missing in action, as does the rest of what you claim.

You're not making sense here. It sounds like you are accusing me of something, but I can't put my finger on it.

In any case: when someone disagrees with mainstream science, it doesn't matter at all if (s)he is a christian, muslim, atheist,....

Scientists try to disprove mainstream science every day. It's their job. Every scientist's wet dream is to prove all his peers wrong. That's how you achieve fame and glory. That's how you get universities, streets, statues, buildings, even entire towns, named after you. That's how you win Nobel prizes.

Those who's work merely uphold the status quo, are the gray mice who's names resonate with nobody. Because yey: their experiment / paper showed that that which everybody already knew, is true. Greeeaaat.

Now, if the person who doesn't agree with mainstream science, disagrees in the way like a Ken Ham does ... now that's a different issue. "You're all wrong, because I have this book" and "i don't need to show that you are all wrong, because I have this book".

Disagreeing with the mainstream is one thing. The question is, what do you do with that disagreement? If you go on and work towards better explanation and more and better science: awesome! If you go the way of Ken Ham and alike: yes, you can expect ridicule.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you assume a supernatural God that communicates, and then assume natural methodology in receiving revelation and inscribing it to natural materials.

That's not an assumption. That's a fact. We are humans with material brains that can easily trick us. We are "doomed" to use our faculties to figure things out - wheter it is through observation and working it out for ourselves, or through processing input from some "higher power" or whatever source it is.

That's just how it is.

That's not how it works

Except that it is........
HUMANS wrote the bible.
They wrote it using natural materials that decay, meaning that they had to copy it all the time. Then language changed and / or the religion expanded to other regions where they spoke other languages.

So, for this "message" to have reached us today, it passed through the faulty and imperfect hands, brains and tongues of thousands, nay, millions of people.
And when these people hear / read those stories, they need to read it correct, interpret it, process the information,.....

It's no wonder that christianity has 10s of thousands of denominations...
Even Islam, a religion notorious for how utterly STRICT they are in preserving their scriptures, has plenty of denominations.

, assuming a Christian worldview and bringing elements from a non-Christian worldview into it to argue against it.

It doesn't matter what worldview you assume. Humans are humans.

I recommend reading about the different Christian "theories" of inspiration and illumination, because a sovereign God that wants to communicate His message to people, can surely ensure that His intended message is inscribed as He intends, as He wills.

Is that why there are thousands of different denominations? With even many many disagreements within a single denomination?

If what you say is true AND if christianity was a true religion, then I'ld expect every christian to agree with every other christian on matters of religion. But the very opposite seems to be the case.

In other words, the God of Christianity, far surpasses the flaws of humans, flaws in reasoning and senses of His creatures are a non-issue for Him. So yes, it does matter.

You say this, but the evidence does not support your statement. Au contraire...

 

[Oncedeceived]

As in when I say "I know X is true", you don't need to take my word on it. You don't need to accept it at face value.

I can demonstrate it to you and show you that X is true.

So knowledge, is demonstrable.

Ok, so demonstrate how knowledge is demonstrable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Having knowledge of a thing, doesn't mean you have ALL knowledge of that thing.
Also, it's in fact because we have knowledge of the cell, that we can even know what cancer is.

Not being able to cure it (not completely true, actually, but I'll roll with it), does not mean our knowledge of the cell is false.

It is that we can comprehend a cell, cancer, facts and reality which are all grounded in the Laws of Logic. It would be impossible to demonstrate any finding without those a priori laws of Laws of Logic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is that we can comprehend a cell, cancer, facts and reality which are all grounded in the Laws of Logic. It would be impossible to demonstrate any finding without those a priori laws of Laws of Logic.

So, what are the "Laws of Logic"? I'm not sure what you mean when you say that anything is "grounded" in them. Logic doesn't have to hide inside of anything, any more than "peddling" hides inside of a bicycle. Reality simply has to be amenable to logic, much like the bicycle's mechanical structure does something interesting when moved in a certain way. You seem to think that logic hides "inside" of things. That doesn't have to be the case.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, what are the "Laws of Logic"? I'm not sure what you mean when you say that anything is "grounded" in them. Logic doesn't have to hide inside of anything, any more than "peddling" hides inside of a bicycle. Reality simply has to be amenable to logic, much like the bicycle's mechanical structure does something interesting when moved in a certain way. You seem to think that logic hides "inside" of things. That doesn't have to be the case.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The laws of Logic are the fundamental laws of reality and truth, the principles that make rational thought possible.

Our rational thought is grounded in them. I don't think that logic "hides inside" of things...unless of course you feel our thoughts "hide inside" our minds?