Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your sensus divinitatus is broken then kind sir. You need to be regenerated by the Great Physician.To argue that there is a "sensus divinitatus" one must first think there is a "divinitatus" to sense.
haven't read WCB in awhile. I don't think AP says the knowledge is granted, but confirmed by the Holy Spirit. might be mistaken though. I think this would handle your chicken/egg problem.I object to the use of the word "know", and yes it is a proper objection to the idea that you need to accept christian doctrine before "knowledge" of the most basic fact of christian doctrine becomes possible.
Your sensus divinitatus is broken then kind sir. You need to be regenerated by the Great Physician.
haven't read WCB in awhile. I don't think AP says the knowledge is granted, but confirmed by the Holy Spirit. might be mistaken though. I think this would handle your chicken/egg problem.
Hmm. Would all properly basic beliefs be "special pleading?"
How do you trust science knowledge if we can't demonstrate the reality of the external world, other minds, reality of the past, uniformity of nature across time and space, problem of induction (HUME), or the ability of beings to rationally understand the external world (given that evolutionary theory suggests organisms optimize around survival fitness not recognition of truth)
The chicken and egg problem is that I have a supposed "sensus divinitatus".
It's generally bad form to assume the consequence of ones argument in order to arrive at one of it's premises.
That makes this a presuppositional argument, both about God and about me. Presupposing your conclusion before the argument and asserting it without evidence sounds like a "trick" theists are fond of though.
Because it works.
I'm not sure why you're assuming that all this philosophical mumbo jumbo is the correct basis for evaluating methods of studying the real world. Has philosophy ever been successful in establishing any particular view on the matter as correct without outside help?
As I pointed out earlier elsewhere, evaluative statements "about" philosophy...is an act of doing philosophy, since by definition, the act of evaluating the world around us, and in which we move and think, makes up the central core of what it is to "do" philosophy. So, you've already placed yourself into a philosophical niche, KC, whether you realize it or not. You're now evaluating "mumbo jumbo" by use of your own "mumbo jumbo."
I smell equivocation. Don't know if I'm doing philosophy or not in the process, but I can tell a bait and switch when I see one.
when you don't even know what it is and when you're doing it
You'll notice I never claimed I was or wasn't doing philosophy, just that I was objecting to a certain type of philosophical mumbo jubmo. Is there a reason you're so anxious to comment on things I never wrote? Maybe that sort of thing wins points in certain disciplines but I'm not particularly impressed by it - it isn't as if it takes any real insight to just make stuff up.
The A/C model is a model not an argument.
A theistic trick, then, can be how ones make a major project of using logic and material stuff to prove historical things the Bible says, but they do not give ever more attention to how the Bible says God wants us to become like Jesus and learn how to love any and all people while we are mainly about pleasing Him.
This is very good, I think. Thank youProbably not a trick as much as immaturity.
Any chance you're actually going to get around to answering the question I asked in post 23?Rrrrrrright! You definitely didn't claim that you were doing philosophy; I did. And you don't have to be impressed by it. You just need to be corrected by it. So, do I need to spell out the nature of philosophy with a little helpful video like I did for you over in the Science forum?
Any chance you're actually going to get around to answering the question I asked in post 23?
Tricks Theists Play (Part 1)
In 2001 or 2002 I was invited by a Christian friend to see a presentation by an Aussie named Ken Ham. It was not just eye-opening, but a jaw-dropping experience.
I listened for an hour to claims about scripture which were not supported historically or from scripture. But more disturbing was the misrepresentation about scientific claims, scientific knowledge, and how one should approach these discussions with "skeptics."
Now have no intention of being drawn into debates about young-earth vs. old-earth theories, or detailed entailment so of "How God created." My primary concern is to highlight bad arguments coming from Ham and his ministry. My hope is that I can dissuade theists from using such constructions in favor of sound and compelling rational arguments.
Now Ham has changed some of his approach in the last 15 years so my notes may no longer be representative of his views.
1 - Evolution and the Big Bang Model of cosmology are just "Theories!"
Now if you have read some of my other, "Tricks," treads you will be familiar with this informal fallacy...equivocation.
The Oxford dictionary defines the word "Equivocation," as, "The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself."
This equivocation is always meant to deceive. But it only deceives the uneducated and those to lazy to do the research.
"Theory" in scientific parlance means an inductive inference about the data that has withstood the test of time, hundreds or thousands of confirmatory experiments, and is accepted by all the experts as knowledge.
In common usage it is equivocal to a hypothesis. That is a inference that explains data.
The trick Ham wants you to miss is he is substituting common usage for scientific usage. Just the way new atheists often want to misrepresent atheism as lack of belief or faith as a way of knowing. If we doesn't pay attention to the fact that "atheism" and "faith" have specific meanings in the fields of philosophy and theology respectively, we can be dragged into equivocations meant to misguide and conflate, with statements like, "common usage is ..."
2 - "We're you there?"
Here we find the most damning argument against Ham and his methodology. After Ham's presentation a student asked the question, "How do you account for all the dinosaur fossils that are millions of years old." Without missing a beat Ham responded, "We're you there?"
His point was to create skepticism about scientific findings unless we had first-hand knowledge of the events.
I decided not to embarrass the fellow. But I did ask him after the talk how he demonstrated the validity of the historical info about Jesus' death and resurrection. He blurted out a bunch of one-liners, to which I responded, "We're you there?" Puzzled, he hesitated and then kept giving me evidence as if he had deleted the cognitively dissonant revelation altogether.
Point is Ham's epistemic approach destroys all scientific and historical knowledge. In fact legal knowledge is greatly injured as well as no one on a jury could every "know' something based on eye-witness testimony.
Ham is perhaps the Christian equivalent of the plethora of Internet infidels found out on places like YouTube. This is a step below the new atheists in that they are unaware of historic claims, and philosophical claims, and logic in general. Both appeal to a poorly educated audiences focusing on rhetorical flourish alone. (P.S. I have relatives that fall for this Answers in Genesis propaganda)
Please share other theistic tricks you have run into.
However, beware not to regurgitate internet infidel propaganda mindlessly. They create straw men of theistic arguments and attack those as "fallacious."
Straw arguments always make poor substitutes for real ones.
Tricks Theists Play (Part 1)
In 2001 or 2002 I was invited by a Christian friend to see a presentation by an Aussie named Ken Ham. It was not just eye-opening, but a jaw-dropping experience.
I listened for an hour to claims about scripture which were not supported historically or from scripture. But more disturbing was the misrepresentation about scientific claims, scientific knowledge, and how one should approach these discussions with "skeptics."
Now have no intention of being drawn into debates about young-earth vs. old-earth theories, or detailed entailment so of "How God created." My primary concern is to highlight bad arguments coming from Ham and his ministry. My hope is that I can dissuade theists from using such constructions in favor of sound and compelling rational arguments.
Now Ham has changed some of his approach in the last 15 years so my notes may no longer be representative of his views.
1 - Evolution and the Big Bang Model of cosmology are just "Theories!"
Now if you have read some of my other, "Tricks," treads you will be familiar with this informal fallacy...equivocation.
The Oxford dictionary defines the word "Equivocation," as, "The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself."
This equivocation is always meant to deceive. But it only deceives the uneducated and those to lazy to do the research.
"Theory" in scientific parlance means an inductive inference about the data that has withstood the test of time, hundreds or thousands of confirmatory experiments, and is accepted by all the experts as knowledge.
In common usage it is equivocal to a hypothesis. That is a inference that explains data.
The trick Ham wants you to miss is he is substituting common usage for scientific usage. Just the way new atheists often want to misrepresent atheism as lack of belief or faith as a way of knowing. If we doesn't pay attention to the fact that "atheism" and "faith" have specific meanings in the fields of philosophy and theology respectively, we can be dragged into equivocations meant to misguide and conflate, with statements like, "common usage is ..."
2 - "We're you there?"
Here we find the most damning argument against Ham and his methodology. After Ham's presentation a student asked the question, "How do you account for all the dinosaur fossils that are millions of years old." Without missing a beat Ham responded, "We're you there?"
His point was to create skepticism about scientific findings unless we had first-hand knowledge of the events.
I decided not to embarrass the fellow. But I did ask him after the talk how he demonstrated the validity of the historical info about Jesus' death and resurrection. He blurted out a bunch of one-liners, to which I responded, "We're you there?" Puzzled, he hesitated and then kept giving me evidence as if he had deleted the cognitively dissonant revelation altogether.
Point is Ham's epistemic approach destroys all scientific and historical knowledge. In fact legal knowledge is greatly injured as well as no one on a jury could every "know' something based on eye-witness testimony.
Ham is perhaps the Christian equivalent of the plethora of Internet infidels found out on places like YouTube. This is a step below the new atheists in that they are unaware of historic claims, and philosophical claims, and logic in general. Both appeal to a poorly educated audiences focusing on rhetorical flourish alone. (P.S. I have relatives that fall for this Answers in Genesis propaganda)
Please share other theistic tricks you have run into.
However, beware not to regurgitate internet infidel propaganda mindlessly. They create straw men of theistic arguments and attack those as "fallacious."
Straw arguments always make poor substitutes for real ones.
Any chance you're actually going to get around to answering the question I asked in post 23?
Because it works.
I'm not sure why you're assuming that all this philosophical mumbo jumbo is the correct basis for evaluating methods of studying the real world. Has philosophy ever been successful in establishing any particular view on the matter as correct without outside help?
As for the first one, Creation Ministries International advised against using it in their article 'Arguments we think creationists should NOT use' (Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com) They wrote:
Tricks Theists Play (Part 1)
In 2001 or 2002 I was invited by a Christian friend to see a presentation by an Aussie named Ken Ham. It was not just eye-opening, but a jaw-dropping experience.
I listened for an hour to claims about scripture which were not supported historically or from scripture. But more disturbing was the misrepresentation about scientific claims, scientific knowledge, and how one should approach these discussions with "skeptics."
Now have no intention of being drawn into debates about young-earth vs. old-earth theories, or detailed entailment so of "How God created." My primary concern is to highlight bad arguments coming from Ham and his ministry. My hope is that I can dissuade theists from using such constructions in favor of sound and compelling rational arguments.
Now Ham has changed some of his approach in the last 15 years so my notes may no longer be representative of his views.
1 - Evolution and the Big Bang Model of cosmology are just "Theories!"
Now if you have read some of my other, "Tricks," treads you will be familiar with this informal fallacy...equivocation.
The Oxford dictionary defines the word "Equivocation," as, "The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself."
This equivocation is always meant to deceive. But it only deceives the uneducated and those to lazy to do the research.
"Theory" in scientific parlance means an inductive inference about the data that has withstood the test of time, hundreds or thousands of confirmatory experiments, and is accepted by all the experts as knowledge.
In common usage it is equivocal to a hypothesis. That is a inference that explains data.
The trick Ham wants you to miss is he is substituting common usage for scientific usage. Just the way new atheists often want to misrepresent atheism as lack of belief or faith as a way of knowing. If we doesn't pay attention to the fact that "atheism" and "faith" have specific meanings in the fields of philosophy and theology respectively, we can be dragged into equivocations meant to misguide and conflate, with statements like, "common usage is ..."
2 - "We're you there?"
Here we find the most damning argument against Ham and his methodology. After Ham's presentation a student asked the question, "How do you account for all the dinosaur fossils that are millions of years old." Without missing a beat Ham responded, "We're you there?"
His point was to create skepticism about scientific findings unless we had first-hand knowledge of the events.
I decided not to embarrass the fellow. But I did ask him after the talk how he demonstrated the validity of the historical info about Jesus' death and resurrection. He blurted out a bunch of one-liners, to which I responded, "We're you there?" Puzzled, he hesitated and then kept giving me evidence as if he had deleted the cognitively dissonant revelation altogether.
Point is Ham's epistemic approach destroys all scientific and historical knowledge. In fact legal knowledge is greatly injured as well as no one on a jury could every "know' something based on eye-witness testimony.
Ham is perhaps the Christian equivalent of the plethora of Internet infidels found out on places like YouTube. This is a step below the new atheists in that they are unaware of historic claims, and philosophical claims, and logic in general. Both appeal to a poorly educated audiences focusing on rhetorical flourish alone. (P.S. I have relatives that fall for this Answers in Genesis propaganda)
Please share other theistic tricks you have run into.
However, beware not to regurgitate internet infidel propaganda mindlessly. They create straw men of theistic arguments and attack those as "fallacious."
Straw arguments always make poor substitutes for real ones.
An interesting observation. I've read scores of textbooks and hundreds, perhaps thousands of research papers and I cannot recall a single instance of such usage. I readily concede that I may simply not have noticed it, since it is not something I would be looking for. Would you provide an example or two where scientists have used theory in the looser, speculative sense, in the literature. Thank you.So the critic is simply wrong to say that it’s a mistake to use theory to mean ‘speculation’, ‘conjecture’ or ‘guess’; and that scientists never use theory this way in the literature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?