The Double Edged Sword

[Resha Caner]

What are you favorite arguments intended to discredit a position that you think actually cut both ways? In other words, though the argument does raise some difficult questions, it works just as much against the person promoting it as it works for them?

 

[durangodawood]

What are your favorite arguments intended to discredit a position that you think actually cut both ways? In other words, though the argument does raise some difficult questions, it works just as much against the person promoting it as it works for them?

I'm curious to hear the responses.

But my favorite arguments are typically ones that work. An argument that boomerangs back and takes you out at the knees doesnt really work very well.

Whats your favorite one?

 

[durangodawood]

...oops

 

[Uber Genius]

Transcendent arguments for God. The reason they can be undercut is that they try to explain certain features of the world that seem impossible given a physicalist (atheistic) causal story. However, one can counter with other intuitions about the world that seem impossible given a theistic account of the world.

These would include argument from desire, aesthetic beauty, religious experience. One could counter with arguments from apathy, ugliness, irreligious in the supposed religious.

The arguments below are excerpted from Peter Kreeft at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#18

Desire:

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Aesthetic beauty:

1. Examine the music of Johann Sebastian Bach or painting/architecture of Da Vinci, or sculpture of Michelangelo, one will find all are universally perceived as more beautiful than their contemporaries work.
2. Beauty can only be so objectively is there is a standard of beauty that is outside of culture
3. The only possible explanation of the existence of a standard of objective beauty is found in a personal creative being who is that standard.

Religious Experience:

1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

Luckily enough the Christian God has not made the knowledge bar the standard. It is not knowledge that seems to keep people from engaging God.

 

[durangodawood]

Transcendent arguments for God. The reason they can cut both ways is that a counter can be suggested.

These would include argument from desire, aesthetic beauty, religious experience. One could counter with argument from apathy, ugliness, irreligious in the supposed religious.

The arguments below are excerpted from Peter Kreeft at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#18

Desire:

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Aesthetic beauty:

1. Examine the music of Johann Sebastian Bach or painting/architecture of Da Vinci, or sculpture of Michelangelo, one will find all are universally perceived as more beautiful than their contemporaries work.
2. Beauty can only be so objectively is there is a standard of beauty that is outside of culture
3. The only possible explanation of the existence of a standard of objective beauty is found in a personal creative being who is that standard.

Religious Experience:

1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

But those arguments are terrible even before they boomerang back at at you.

I do appreciate the clarity with which you presented them, tho.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What are you favorite arguments intended to discredit a position that you think actually cut both ways? In other words, though the argument does raise some difficult questions, it works just as much against the person promoting it as it works for them?

Never take any position that the Father does not direct you to.
His Word is LIGHT, and in Him is no darkness at all.
No double-mindedness, no error, no regrets, no mistakes.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Theology of war, positions for and against, the implications of for and against.

Theology for Biblical type society government, the Theonomy debate drives me nuts just thinking about it.

Theology behind Church government is also a difficult one, especially were the Law and Gospel are concerned.

These important topics have a tendency to leave me feeling perplexed, life is complicated, but I tend to prefer less complication when and where possible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Apologetic_Warrior, post: 73185747, member: 15906"]Theology of war, positions for and against, the implications of for and against.
Theology for Biblical type society government, the Theonomy debate drives me nuts just thinking about it.
Theology behind Church government is also a difficult one, especially were the Law and Gospel are concerned.
These important topics have a tendency to leave me feeling perplexed, life is complicated, but I tend to prefer less complication when and where possible.[/QUOTE
===============================================
Why are they important topics? Or why is life 'complicated' ?

I believe as written that Yahweh(God) made everything simple, and man came up with many devices (distractions/ ? etc) ......

 

[Uber Genius]

But those arguments are terrible even before they boomerang back at at you.

I do appreciate the clarity with which you presented them, tho.

No. Not at all.

But they can be defeated.

One has but to read Nietztsche, Sartre, Camus, Beckett all highlight the meaningless of life without God.

Further, one has to wonder about 3500 years of an experience of the divine. On atheism what the heck are they experiencing?

Similarly, beauty which at first blush can seem subject-dependent, but on more careful examination, we see things across all creative endeavours that are claimed by historians to be the ultimate or penultimate or so on, stack ranked in beauty. Where is the reference guide to beauty. On atheism what causal account could ever be given.

So although they cut both ways in that alternative examples of things that we intuit about our world seem to be more likely if there were no God, at least of the Judeo-Christian variety, the three arguments have stood the test of 2500 years of philosophical investigation.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Why are they important topics? Or why is life 'complicated' ?

I believe as written that Yahweh(God) made everything simple, and man came up with many devices (distractions/ ? etc) ......

Oh questions like:

Can a Christian join the military in good conscience even if they are placed in a position where displays of military force may be required?

If Christians are not to join the military, there is no Christian influence in the military, and where does this put one nation against another during a time or war?

or questions like: Should the Mosaic Law apply to societies where people desire to be faithful to a Biblical form of government? Jesus did say "not one jot or tittle will pass away" and that He did not come to destroy (abolish) the law...(but to fulfill). So from this, it would seem secular society should be under at least a type of Mosaic law, no?

or questions like: Should a woman be able to be in a position of authority in a Church? I know what the Apostle Paul say's, but is this more of a cultural issue? An instance in a Church were certain women were unruly and disruptive?

Honestly, I see little help with simple platitudes.

 

[durangodawood]

No. Not at all.

But they can be defeated.

One has but to read Nietztsche, Sartre, Camus, Beckett all highlight the meaningless of life without God.

Further, one has to wonder about 3500 years of an experience of the divine. On atheism what the heck are they experiencing?

Similarly, beauty which at first blush can seem subject-dependent, but on more careful examination, we see things across all creative endeavours that are claimed by historians to be the ultimate or penultimate or so on, stack ranked in beauty. Where is the reference guide to beauty. On atheism what causal account could ever be given.

So although they cut both ways in that alternative examples of things that we intuit about our world seem to be more likely if there were no God, at least of the Judeo-Christian variety, the three arguments have stood the test of 2500 years of philosophical investigation.

Would be interested in going down these avenues, at least briefly. but I dont want to derail RC's thread.

 

[Resha Caner]

Whats your favorite one?

From the unbeliever's side, arguments that religion is bad because it causes war. Such arguments devolve into anarchist arguments that all human institutions are bad, which further devolve into an argument that all people sin. Um. Yeah. So what was your point again?

From the believer's side, arguments for ID. Such arguments require the proponent to essentially claim they are a god. Not a good place for a Christian to be.

- - -

But my latest is the problem of evil. It's never been a convincing argument to me, though it raises some interesting issues. Still, lately I've come to think the problem of evil is a problem for everyone, not just believers.

 

[Resha Caner]

Would be interested in going down these avenues, at least briefly. but I dont want to derail RC's thread.

Go for it.

 

[Chesterton]

But my latest is the problem of evil. It's never been a convincing argument to me, though it raises some interesting issues. Still, lately I've come to think the problem of evil is a problem for everyone, not just believers.

Wasn't sure if I understood what your OP was talking about, but maybe this is an example. I see an atheist asserting the problem of evil as asserting something which works against him. The very use of the words "problem" or "evil" have to assume the idea of the supernatural, which is the thing they're arguing against. Because, the argument only works if the thing they're talking about is actually evil, not merely unconducive to survival, or unpleasant or anything else. It has to actually be wrong according to some standard not given by the natural world (obviously).

Atheists will generally tell us we live on a "pale blue dot"; we're insignificant, and the universe is uncaring, with no purpose or intention. Then I'm supposed to listen to them tell me that things aren't what they "should" be?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Transcendent arguments for God. The reason they can be undercut is that they try to explain certain features of the world that seem impossible given a physicalist (atheistic) causal story. However, one can counter with other intuitions about the world that seem impossible given a theistic account of the world.

These would include argument from desire, aesthetic beauty, religious experience. One could counter with arguments from apathy, ugliness, irreligious in the supposed religious.

The arguments below are excerpted from Peter Kreeft at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#18

Desire:

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Aesthetic beauty:

1. Examine the music of Johann Sebastian Bach or painting/architecture of Da Vinci, or sculpture of Michelangelo, one will find all are universally perceived as more beautiful than their contemporaries work.
2. Beauty can only be so objectively is there is a standard of beauty that is outside of culture
3. The only possible explanation of the existence of a standard of objective beauty is found in a personal creative being who is that standard.

Religious Experience:

1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

Luckily enough the Christian God has not made the knowledge bar the standard. It is not knowledge that seems to keep people from engaging God.

Yeah, those arguments all originate from subjectivism. While there is truth to them, it is objectively easy to punch holes in them, at least framed as they are.
For example on Desire:

2. assumes much, how does the one creature (the one making the argument) speak for all creatures, it assumes exhaustive knowledge of the creature.

3. is question begging me thinks.

4. does not follow, even if it did, which God?

 

[Uber Genius]

Would be interested in going down these avenues, at least briefly. but I dont want to derail RC's thread.

Yep. Glad to. Ping me on conversation if you like.

Kreeft, Tatracelli, C. S. Lewis, Swindburne, Dostoevsky, and even Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". All make arguments worth studying. There effectiveness ...cuts both ways.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Honestly, I see little help with simple platitudes.

What are simple platitudes ?
Scripture is simple, as noted following :

Can a Christian join the military in good conscience even if they are placed in a position where displays of military force may be required?

No.

If Christians are not to join the military, there is no Christian influence in the military, and where does this put one nation against another during a time or war?

The Ekklesia influence is by prayer, just as in the first century. Currently, there is or appears to be very little in any military that is 'Christian' or even close.

or questions like: Should the Mosaic Law apply to societies where people desire to be faithful to a Biblical form of government?

Yes (obviously!)

So from this, it would seem secular society should be under at least a type of Mosaic law, no?

Why would any secular society be under any type of Mosaic law ?
According to the New Testament, all society is pernicious (death-dealing, sinful, dragging everyone down that it can).

or questions like: Should a woman be able to be in a position of authority in a Church?

No (obviously) (I think you already know this from what you've read/ posted).

I know what the Apostle Paul say's, but is this more of a cultural issue?

No. Not at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

It has to actually be wrong according to some standard not given by the natural world.

Yup. It can belie unstated assumptions, such as assuming "I" am not part of the "natural world". That's always a fun one.

 

[Resha Caner]

... subjectivism ... objectively

Yeah. I'm a film nut, and I was watching a video debate about 24 fps. One side stated that 60p was "objectively better" which caused the other guy to sigh and hang his head. He responded by quoting The Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think."

I burst a gut laughing because it reminded me of debates I've witnessed here.

 

[Resha Caner]

Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".

Ooooooooh. Are you familiar with Hartry Field? Science Without Numbers