ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[Balder]

I've offered my own posts for Hilston's consideration on another thread, so I don't mean to get sidetracked with him on this one, but I guess this is as good a place as any to ask this question...

Hilston, can you offer any positive arguments for why the Judeo-Christian God is uniquely qualified to account for all human knowledge and experience, including mathematics and logic? I know you prefer to tear down other's views, which is why I have given you that opportunity on the Presuppositionalism thread, but I am interested in why you think logic, order, rationality, math, morality, etc, only make sense in a Christian theistic worldview. What qualities of Christian theism set it apart from all other theistic and non-theistic perspectives, making it uniquely and exclusively capable of accounting for everything?

 

[NavyDude]

The only argument I could come up with stems on a belief in Yahweh; that, since He made the Universe, He is then responsible for all the knowledge that can be learned from it. But since we're speaking of inter-faith arguments, we can't lean on that as a presupposition, and thus I am also very curious.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by prodigal
Clete,

(prodigal has already admitted that his world view is in as a bad a position as he is claiming that Christianity is in, that's step one.)

I admitted nothing to that effect. Although my memory isn't quite what it used to be. Oh, and Clete, I thought you were letting Hilston fight your battles for you?

The comment you are responding too wasn't directed at you so I'm not sure I see the validity of your objection, but either way, the "battle", as you call it, was over a day or so ago, you've no more arms or legs but just keep flailing away, trying to bite Jim's knee caps off! (Somebody should make a comedy skit about that! :chuckle: )
You've already been beaten but you've not been broken. The former was Jim's doing the latter is between you and God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

(Somebody should make a comedy skit about that! :chuckle: )

I take it you've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

 

[NavyDude]

When danger reared its ugly head, sir Robin turned and bravely fled.

 

[prodigal]

Hilston,

(Do you hear yourself? To say in one moment "The only way of validating my senses ..." and then to say in the next moment "... is to play your game" is quite ridiculous, isn't it? I mean, you take one of the most fundamental assumptions of human experience and admit you have no validation, then turn right around and say that validating them is a "game." Another horse led to water.)

Once again you're misquoting me. Please knock it off.

(You're right. But it's not because of my unwillingness to fight it. It's because you have no weapons, Prodigal.)

I don't need weapons. All I need is a window with a good view of the sky.

(Since you've all but admitted to having an irrational worldview)

Haven't come close to doing any such thing, if memory serves and it doesn't always. Like I've said, you're the one who believes in the fairy tale and will refuse to account for why you believe it's true. I worship myself because what I am and what I do is self-evident, not just to myself but to the people who believe in me.

(You're still left with an irrational worldview on which you have no basis to prove, test or validate your own faculties, knowledge or beliefs, and no basis to expect proof or validation from others about their beliefs.)

Once again, it's a nice trick, but I ain't fallin' for it. Your argument is this: The sky COULD BE red, though it IS clearly blue, therefore because of WHAT COULD BE you have no basis on which to question what another person believes. I believe in what IS, Hilston. You believe in WHAT COULD BE.

(Then neither do I. Stop being a hypocrite by demanding that other people validate their claims. Stop boasting about how you deny "claims that have no proof to verify their validity." Those were your words, remember?)

My memory doesn't always serve, but I think it is this time. All you want me to do is stop attacking your faith, eh? Why? You've done a lackluster job defending it, so why should I stop? I don't really think I'm being too unfair. You say that your senses are validated, but I deny the validity of the system with which you validated them in the first place, so that's a moot point. So far, I've asked for proof, you've given none and the whole while you've been trying to discredit me with pointless arguments.

(The burden of proof is on everyone, Prodigal. Anyone who makes a claim must prove it. I've proven that you cannot validate your senses or reasoning. You've admitted as much.)

I've admitted that it's either a: impossible to do in the first place, or b: it's an untrustworthy system by which to go about with the "validifying" in the first place. All you've proven is that I can't do what you can't even prove to be able to do yourself. You've succesfully made mountains out of mole hills and wasted everyone's time. Thanks, Hilston.

(Then show me how you can make predictions and proofs without being arbitrary. If you can't, then you need to shut. up.)

Don't tell me to shut up, Hilston. This thread wasn't a challenge for all y'all to attack me, but to defend yourselves. You came to my thread, you didn't stick to the topic, you've insulted me and over all you're being considerably rude. Perhaps I haven't been one hundred percent cordial, but please, manners Hilston, manners. Didn't your mother, your TRUE creator, ever teach you any? And this whole arbitrary thing, what the heck are you talking about?

(That's called self-delusion. Crazy people talk like that, Prodigal)

Now check out this next line.....

(I'm not calling you crazy)

Okay......

(You're the one who admitted that you cannot validate your senses and claim that you don't have to.)

The only way to validate my senses is to prescribe to the system you use. You admitted that. You're challenging me to do the impossible, simply to gridlock the argument. It's worked so far, we've gone around and around like this for quite some time without getting anything accomplished. I felt like I made more progress with Clete. You've successfully shifted the entire topic of the discussion to something that in the end makes no sense. Bravo, Hilston, the old christian trick has worked again.

(And you're not self-deluded either, right?)

Right. Like I've already said, you worship the zombie, you believe in hell, you believe in angels and demons. No, I'm fairly sound of mind my friend.

Knowing that the sky is blue requires no self-delusion. Believing that you're going to a wonderful fantasy land after you die does.

(Premise A: Validation of X depends on Y.
Premise B: I don't like Y.
Conclusion: Validation of X cannot be resolved.)

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like Y. It has everything to do with not trusting your premise. You ask for the validation of my senses yet you admit to me that the only way for me to do it is to agree with a christian worldview. The basis of what I'm arguing on is that a christian worldview cannot be trusted because of the lack of proof, yet you try to undermine my challenge by making impossible requirements. It's a game Hilston, pure and simple. Christians have been playing these kinds of games for 2000 years.

(Then what is this if not an admission?: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game.")

That was a clarification of the point you were making. I admitted nothing.

(Seeing it with what? Your eyes, whose verity you cannot validate? Your visual cortex, whose proper function you cannot validate?)

Hilston, your argument is based on hypothesis. My argument is based on the self-evident. I'll hypothesize along with you for a moment, and I'm qualifying what I'm about to say lest you misquote me again: "The sky appears to be blue, and it is within my capability to find scientific proof for why the sky is blue, but IT COULD BE RED because I, along with everyone else, do not know IF my eyes are working properly, therefore the sky COULD BE red, despite all evidence saying that IT IS blue."

I'm done hypothesizing. The sky IS blue. When measured against IT COULD BE, IS is always stronger. What IS as compared to your favorite, WHAT COULD BE.

(Premise A: I can't validate my senses unless I play Hilston's game
Premise B: I don't like Hilston's game.
Conclusion: Hilston is bitter.)

Like I said, it has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" your game. Frankly, I don't, but that's incidental. As much as you would hate to admit it, I'm actually taking you semi-seriously. I was a christian for 20 years, now I'm not, I have a rather unique perspective right now. I'm familiar with all of the apologetic tricks out there, and Hilston, I have no reason to believe that you're not trying to pull one over on me. I don't trust the validity of your beliefs so why should I trust your methods of determining reality, especially when they're based on your beliefs? What do you really expect from me?

(On the contrary, Prodigal, YOU started this by demanding proof and verification to validate claims.)

What, you don't think that's fair? To ask one why he believes in a zombie messiah, heaven, hell, demons, angels, satan himself, and the very words of a book that was written thousands of years ago? You obviously don't think it's fair otherwise you would have fearlessly answered me from the start.

(You tacitly claim to have the ability to evaluate "proof and verification." So I challenged your claim using your own requirements. The burden of proof was thrown heavily in YOUR face, Prodigal.)

First of all, we were supposed to be talking about you and the rest of christianity. Instead of fearlessly defending yourself from the beginning, instead of showing me the proof that you all claim you have, you've attempted to defend yourself via counter attack. If it's so true, if you really do have the proof, Hilston, why not show me, and THEN go on the offensive? You haven't proven a thing yet, and that's why I started this thread, to be shown proof. All you have to say if you have none is that you have none, and that will be that. But LH, Aimiel, Clete, and even yourself if I remember correctly (and I don't always) have eluded and even said that you have proof. Why not just elaborate? Why not give me an example? If you're so right, convince me, show me your cards. What do you have that makes your belief true?

I don't believe the sky is blue.

I know the sky is blue, it's right up there, take a look for yourself.

God is no where to be seen. You can say that you see god in creation, but evolutionists can see the fruit of their beliefs in creation as well, so when the experts disagree, you're right back to square one.

 

[prodigal]

Clete,

(The comment you are responding too wasn't directed at you so I'm not sure I see the validity of your objection, but either way, the "battle", as you call it, was over a day or so ago, you've no more arms or legs but just keep flailing away, trying to bite Jim's knee caps off! (Somebody should make a comedy skit about that!)
You've already been beaten but you've not been broken. The former was Jim's doing the latter is between you and God.)

First of all, if you want to talk about me to someone else, be prepared for me to respond. The use of my name in an anecdote is all the validity I need.

The battle is no where near over. Claiming victory doesn't mean you've won, Clete. YOU still have yet to outline your "biblical worldview". As you have not done this yet, I can only assume that you're blowing smoke and do not, in fact, have a biblical worldview.

So far you've proven to be a run of the mill, ineffectual christian fundamentalist who when he runs out of answers just claims that he has won. You haven't won anything, Clete, and my appendages are right where they belong. Hilston hasn't won anything either, his apologetics are a show, nothing more. Neither of you have answered my challenge, and frankly it's not that hard. Your belief is strong, but you can't answer why you believe it. You have words like, "biblical worldview", but without an explanation it's good for nothing more than just a smoke screen. Hilston had his "validation of sensory perception" argument, but it was nothing more than a ploy to confuse me out of the argument. A smoke screen and attempted confusion tactic are not signs of victory. They're signs that you're stalling for time, but, y'all have had 2000 years to figure this out. 2000 years and neither you or Hilston, or anyone else for that matter can tell me why they believe and back it up with something tangible. I've had my life so far, and I can tell you, I believe in myself, because I'm here, because I'm strong, smart and for the most part quite affable. My family and friends believe in me because I'm young and they can see the potential in me for greatness. I don't plan on disappointing my fans out there.

 

[jjjg]

Well from what we saw of the election, religion is hardly obselete.

 

[dotcom]

Originally posted by wickwoman

Dear Hilston:

When I say "objective," you can put your own meaning and provide me with what you believe is objective proof. Otherwise, you can use the dictionary just as I did above.

Hilston is presenting a genuine, philosophical & intellectual argument. An understanding of what is "objective" and what is "subjective" is a requirement. A mere dictionary is not going to help much.

For example, if I claim to believe in God, I don't have to prove it objectively because if I did, that "proof" becomes "knowledge" under the auspices of public context completely erasing the concept of belief! By assumption, that statement is deemed to be understandable by most people. No tricks like prodigal is insinuating.

You and prodigal are also presenting valid but corrupt arguments for mere purposes of arguing with no religious and philosophical value. In essence, Prodigal's premise challenged Christians to change a belief proposition into an objective proposition without knowing the difference.

Here is some help from an expert. Good debate nevertheless.

A Critical Distinction in Philosophical Realism


Objective Experiences and
Subjective Experiences

by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.



We could all save ourselves a great deal of time and trouble, not to mention headache and heartache, if only we would learn the distinction between objective and subjective propositions, between public context and private context, between objective knowledge and subjective introspection or belief, and between what assertions can be genuinely argued and those which cannot be argued. Furthermore, a knowledge of the distinction between matters of truth and matters of taste is essential.

We may spend a good portion of our time arguing over things which cannot be the subject of argumentation. Many people confuse their "feelings" with their "thoughts." Many people confuse "truth" with "opinion." Many others confuse "belief" with "objective assertions."



Objective Propositions

Objective propositions are assertions derived from sources of knowledge which can be publicly experienced and that are capable of public verification. This means that, in so far as evidence, proof, or demonstration is concerned, whatever is contained within the category of objective propositions must be accessible to the public at large in some way or other and at some time or other. Assertions of this type are assertions in a "public context." What is to be included?

Certainly it seems obvious that propositions stating facts acquired through direct observation should be included. If someone says it's raining outside, all we have to do to verify his claim is to go outside ourselves and observe the immediate environment. If an argument ensued inside the house about whether or not it was raining outside, the argument could easily be settled by all parties to the argument going outside to experience the rain. The proposition "It is raining outside," if true, certainly would be objective knowledge.

It also seems obvious that self-evident propositions acquired through thinking should be included as objective propositions. The truth of the fundamental propositions of thought, such as the principle of identity and the principle of non-contradiction, is accessible to anyone who thinks about it. The same thing holds true for the propositions "I exist" and "My intellect is capable of knowing the outside world around me."

Arguing about whether or not you exist, either with yourself or someone else, is a total waste of time, worthy only of freshman philosophy students who have nothing better to do. Such an argument is useless since you must accept the truth of self-existence before it can even be argued about.

These two forms of propositions, that is, assertions based on sense-perception through direct observation and assertions based on intellectual awareness through reasoning, can be publicly experienced and verified by any rational person. They are, then, said to be rational methods of acquiring knowledge. Such propositions, under normal conditions, also have the quality of absolute certainty or certitude. If you can't accept these types of propositions as true, there is nothing to really discuss or argue about at all. We would have to remain silent and thoughtless forever!

Another method of deriving objective propositions, which is related to, but not identical with, the above methods, is through what is generally called scientific research or the scientific method. This method begins with sense-perception (which is why we refer to its findings as "empirical" knowledge and the sciences associated with it as empirical sciences) and then goes beyond sense-perception to the process of reasoning about what is found empirically, which then expands our knowledge of the world even beyond what we can immediately experience with our ordinary senses.

The empirical sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and physics, use various procedures and processes to seek out truth and these are referred to generally as the scientific method. These scientific procedures and processes result in scientific laws, scientific hypotheses, and scientific theories.

True scientific findings can be verified in some way or other by the public (which, for the most part in this case, means the community of scientists), so we include them in the category of objectively-derived propositions. Since the scientific method uses reasoning (both inductively and deductively) and the reasoning procedures can be checked and verified by any rational person, the scientific method is said to be a "rational" method of acquiring knowledge.

Our immediate empirical observations ("It is raining outside") and self-evident intellectual propositions ("A is A"), assuming they are properly arrived at and verified, can be said to have absolute certitude. Can the same be said for the laws and theories of empirical science? Can a finding of empirical science be considered absolutely true? The answer is generally "no." These findings have certitude only to some degree or other and are, therefore, called "probable." The probability may be extremely high, even approaching 100% of certitude, but they are not absolutely certain in and of themselves.

Objective propositions, then, are capable of being publicly verified in some way and at some time by any rational person. The methods used to arrive at objective propositions include sense-knowledge, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the scientific methodologies. These methods are considered rational, insofar as any rational person may verify the findings included in the category of objective knowledge.

What about the findings of philosophy? Are philosophical propositions to be included in the category of objective propositions? Here we enter the land of historical and contemporary controversy. There have been and are many philosophers who maintain that philosophical truth is beyond our capabilities. There are also philosophers who claim that they found the absolute, ultimate truth and have expressed it as a comprehensive philosophical system. Then there are philosophers who argue that not only is philosophical truth beyond our capabilities, but there is no such thing as philosophical truth at all!

First, it needs to be said that, if there is no philosophical proposition that can be absolutely true, there are no other propositions that can be either absolutely or probably true. If we don't accept the absolute truth of the primary philosophical truths, then the entire structure of knowledge falls apart and we end up in universal skepticism, where nothing at all can be known.

What are the primary philosophical truths? They are three in number:

The First Fact is my own existence, expressed as the proposition "I exist."
The First Principle is the principle of contradiction, expressed as the proposition "It is impossible for something to be and not to be at the same time in the same respect."
The First Condition is the essential trustworthiness of my reason, expressed as the proposition "My reason is capable of knowing truth."
Each of these truths is absolutely certain. Wipe out any one of these, deny the truth of any one of them, and it is impossible to have knowledge at all. There are, then, no discussions to be had, no arguments to pursue, and no moral or legal principles to guide us.

We know that these three primary philosophical truths are included in the category of objective propositions because any rational person can verify them. Even the hard-nosed philosophical skeptic has to assume their truth in order to deny them!

Second, there are other philosophical truths which can be placed in the category of objective propositions. We will not go into detail about these other truths at this time. What will be said, however, is that any philosophical proposition which is based on the truth of the primary truths, which uses properly the inductive and deductive methods available to us, and is capable of being verified by any rational person, can be said to be a philosophical proposition falling into the category of objective propositions and constitutes, therefore, objective knowledge.

The assertions that constitute objective knowledge, propositions which can be publicly verified by any rational person, are said to be assertions in a "public context." These assertions are either true or false, absolutely or to some degree of probable certitude, and can be the focus of rational argumentation.



Subjective Propositions

We now come to the matter of subjective propositions. These are assertions derived from and within a "private context." Subjective propositions include all assertions derived from sources of knowledge which cannot be publicly experienced and whose propositions are not capable of public verification. This means that, in so far as evidence, proof, or demonstration is concerned, whatever is contained within this category is not accessible to the public at large in some way or other and at some time or other. What is to be included?

It seems obvious that certain statements regarding our internal states of body and mind belong in this category. For example, if I feel a pain in my chest and I say to you, "I have a pain in my chest," this statement cannot, strictly speaking, be publicly verified. No one else can feel the pain in my chest. Of course, you may have experienced chest pains yourself in the past and can relate somewhat to what I'm feeling. But in no sense can you actually feel my pain. This is an internal physical experience that I am having and all I can do is relate it to you. You'll have to take my word that I am truly experiencing the chest pain I say I am having.

The same holds true for internal mental-emotional states. I am depressed, or feeling low, or am content, or am anxious, and these experiences are real for me. No one else can feel my emotional state and, as far as we know now, no one else can experience my private thoughts as I am experiencing them. I can tell you what I am feeling or what I am thinking, but I cannot produce direct evidence, or proof, or demonstrate that what I am telling you is true.

It is certainly true, however, that I might exhibit behavior, or external cues, or what we call "body language," which may provide you with enough information to guess or estimate what I'm feeling or thinking. But, in no way, can you directly experience my private internal states as your own. I realize there are some who claim to be able to get inside our heads and read our thoughts, or who claim to be able to experience our internal physical states, but these claims are so far just that - claims. There is no evidence yet that such claims are true. These claims themselves are in the category of subjective propositions.

These internal states we all experience, whether physical, mental, or emotional, are private states and any statement we make about these internal states of body and mind belong in the category of assertions derived from and within a "private context." These statements may be true; they are not, however, publicly true or objectively true. These sorts of statements we shall call subjective propositions of "introspection."

The category of subjective propositions also includes assertions derived from sources such as intuition, mysticism, revelation, and certain sources labeled "paranormal." Intuition is always a personal experience. The mystic's experiences are private. Revelation, whether human or divine, demands "faith" as its criterion of belief. If human or divine revelations were public knowledge, we wouldn't need any "faith" associated with them, for faith is needed only where no acceptable public verification exists or is possible.

A "paranormal" source of knowledge is more difficult to analyze. At the present time, it seems prudent to keep statements whose source is paranormal or extrasensory within the category of subjective propositions. There is some evidence, mainly anecdotal, that there may be something to such paranormal phenomena as mental telepathy and clairvoyance. Furthermore, there may be something to some of the claims made by so-called "psychics." The question has not been finally resolved and there are ongoing investigations into the phenomena, but no definitive answer has been found.

Revelation, intuition, introspection, mystic experiences, and, for now at least, paranormal phenomena, are designated as belonging to the category of subjective propositions, assertions within a "private context." If these subjective propositions are not derived from personal "introspection," from our internal bodily or mental states, we call these subjective propositions, "beliefs." We refer to these as personal beliefs, or religious beliefs, and so forth. These beliefs as beliefs (at least at the present time) are not capable of public verification and are not, therefore, "rational" in the sense we are using the term here. If a belief becomes publicly verifiable, it ceases to be a belief, and it enters the category of objective propositions or assertions of a "public context"; it becomes a fact or state-of-affairs. It is knowledge, not belief or mere opinion.

If a belief was truly rational, then no rational person could deny it and the evidence, proof, or demonstration needed to support the belief would be accessible to any rational person. In fact, we wouldn't be talking about a belief at all, but statements regarding facts or states-of-affairs.



Rational, Nonrational, and Irrational

While beliefs based on revelation, intuition, introspection, mysticism, and paranormal sources, are not rational, it does not follow that they are irrational, as some people maintain. As we are using the term "rational" here, the opposite of it is "nonrational," not "irrational." Divine revelation, for instance, is a nonrational source of subjective propositions. Intuition is a nonrational source and so is introspection.

The term "irrational" refers to a proposition, not a source, that is self-contradictory or contradicts an empirical or theoretical proposition whose truth is established beyond reasonable doubt. There are, then, no strictly irrational sources of knowledge. But there can be propositions derived from either rational or nonrational sources which are irrational propositions.

Let's consider an example. The question as to whether or not the earth is spherical or flat can be resolved by an appeal to rational sources of knowledge, including sense-knowledge, reasoning, and the scientific method. The answer to the question can be determined by any rational person willing to do the necessary research. It can be publicly verified one way or the other. The final answer, in so far as any answer is final, can be found and verified over and over again.

If a friend comes up to me and says, "The earth is a sphere," I know he is speaking the truth. If I have any doubt about it, I can check it out myself. He has correctly stated a fact, a state-of-affairs, and his proposition is a rational statement based on rational sources.

If, on the other hand, my friend says to me, "The earth is flat," I know he is making a false statement. If we get into an argument about it, the argument is resolved by checking out the facts using sense-knowledge, reasoning, and the scientific method, which are the rational sources used to decide matters of this kind. Since his statement contradicts what we (or any rational person) know to be the truth, his statement is irrational.

Propositions generated from nonrational sources present us with a problem. Can a proposition based on revelation, for example, be said to be irrational? Revelation is a nonrational source and belongs to the category of subjective propositions, those within a "private context." I can think of only one situation where a proposition based on revelation, or another nonrational source for that matter, can be said to be irrational. This would be where an inconsistency occurs within a deductive argument within the category of subjective propositions. The only type of irrational proposition that could occur within the "private context" category of subjective propositions would be one that was irrational only because it was the conclusion of an argument that was illogical.

Remember that only arguments can be logical or illogical, valid or invalid. Propositions, on the other hand, can be true or false, but not logical or illogical. When we say, mistakenly, that a proposition is "illogical," we really mean that the proposition does not follow consistently from the other propositions supporting it. We always have to keep in mind the distinction between truth and validity.

A proposition whose source is nonrational is incapable of being verified by using techniques associated with the category of subjective propositions. If it could be so verified, it would be a proposition belonging to the category of objective propositions or be within the "public context." A proposition within the "private context" might, however, be inconsistent with other previously accepted propositions within the same private context. If it is a conclusion drawn illogically from the premises used to justify it, then to that extent the proposition would be considered "irrational."

So we can say the following. There are at least two possible categories of sources of knowledge: rational and nonrational. These two categories are distinguished from one another on the basis of whether or not the propositions contained therein are capable of public verification.

Propositions based on sense-knowledge, reasoning, and scientific methods are capable of being openly verified by any rational person, and we call these sources "rational." Propositions based on revelation, intuition, mystical experiences, introspection, or paranormal experiences are not (as yet, anyway) capable of being openly verified by all or most rational people, and we call these sources "nonrational."

A proposition within the category of objective propositions is said to be irrational if it is self-contradictory or contradicts what is known empirically or theoretically to be true. A proposition within the category of subjective propositions is said to be irrational only if it is the result of illogical reasoning within that category.



Arguments Within the Categories

An important characteristic of objective propositions is that the propositions contained within this category are capable of being publicly argued. This contrasts with propositions within the category of subjective propositions. In a strict sense, these propositions cannot be publicly argued simply because there is no method of public verification to be applied to them. However, should a proposition within the category of subjective propositions become capable of public verification at some later point in time, then that proposition would move from the category of subjective propositions to that of objective propositions.

This is not to say that some sort of argument cannot take place within the category of subjective propositions. But, it seems to me, this sort of argument would have to be a strictly private one between parties who accepted or denied a certain proposition already contained within the category of subjective propositions.

I can, for example, imagine a situation where two theologians are arguing over the Christian doctrine of Transubstantiation. This is the doctrine regarding the "real" presence of Jesus Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine used during the communion ritual held in many Christian churches. Catholics, and some other Christian denominations assert that the "real" presence is there, while other denominations believe that Christ's body and blood are only symbolically present.

The source for the proposition which asserts or denies such a claim is allegedly the private context of divine revelation. The propositions could be stated this way:

Proposition 1: Christ's body and blood are present in a "real" sense in the bread and wine used in communion.
Proposition 2: Christ's body and blood are not present in a "real" sense in the bread and wine, but are present only "symbolically."
Which proposition is "true"?

There is, of course, no way of transferring the propositions into the public context and utilizing sense-knowledge, inductive or deductive reasoning, or the scientific method. The entire argument must take place only within the private context of subjective propositions. There is no way of using "outside" sources in the public domain to settle the argument. Actually, the "truth" of either proposition seems to be entirely dependent upon how one interprets relevant passages in the Bible. The Bible itself is a source of knowledge only within the private context. The Bible does contain "secular" passages which can be matters of public context, such as historical places and events, but these verifiable passages are of little, if any, use in deciding questions of theological doctrine.

Back to the original question: Which proposition above is "true"? There is, as far as I know, no way to settle such an "argument." And here is the reason I say so. Consider how the propositions above should really be stated:

Proposition 1: I believe that Christ's body and blood are present in a "real" sense in the bread and wine used in communion.
Proposition 2: I believe that Christ's body and blood are not present in a "real" sense in the bread and wine, but are present only "symbolically."
Once the statements are in this form, which I think is the proper form, there is no genuine "argument." The only reply I could make to either one is: "No, you don't believe that." This, of course, would be absurd because I have no way of knowing whether or not the theologians involved really believe what they are stating.

A genuine argument can exist only where there is a genuine assertion of affirmation or denial. And, therefore, in a very real sense, genuine arguments cannot occur within the private context. The knowledge involved in the public context category is "objective" in the sense that it is "out there" to be verified by any rational person using the techniques cited above. The knowledge involved in the private context category is "subjective" in the sense that it is "in here," that is, in one's own mind. With the exception of statements about our internal physical, mental, and emotional states, we usually refer to this latter kind of knowledge as "beliefs." And if a belief is actually verified as true, it is no longer a belief. It becomes an objective proposition within the public context and is known to be true, either absolutely or to some degree of probability. It becomes, then, knowledge, and not mere opinion or belief.

 

[jjjg]

Objective simply means independant of our minds, that is things we perceive through our senses. Subjective means dependant on our minds for a things existence such as the generalizations and abstractions of science.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Lighthouse,

(That's just sad that you believe that. Who gave you your breath, by the way?)

My parents. Don't you know where babies come from LH?

So, your parents breathed the breath of life into you?:liberals:

(You've missed it all, because you refuse to see it for what it is. It's staring you in the face, and you claim it's something other than what it is)

If it were so pure and beautiful in it's truth and visibility, how is it that I can't see it? Must not be as grand as you think it is.

Where did I say it was Pure and beautiful," or "grand"?

(You do too think that. You expect somethign from Him, and think that He at least owes you proof of His existence.)

AHA!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN READ MINDS!!!!!!! I don't think god owes me anything, if I thought that I'd still believe in it. I think I owes me something, and I think I can make good on that debt to myself. That's I believe in myself.

You have said, countless times, that if God existed He should prove His existence to you. What is that, if it's not thinking that God owes you proof?:doh:

At least I can prove that I exist.

Can you prove it to me?:freak:

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

...which is known, of course, as the No True Scotsman fallacy (no expecting you to take time to look that up). It's an escape hatch, Brandon; a phony way of deflecting attention.

If Christian means what the Bible says it means, then you were never a Christian. And, if you're right [which you're not] then no one is a Christian. Because a Christian is one who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Did you have one?

I didn't think so.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by prodigal
First of all, if you want to talk about me to someone else, be prepared for me to respond. The use of my name in an anecdote is all the validity I need.

Cool your jets bub! I didn't say it bothered me that you responded, just that your complaint about my comments was overblown a bit. There's no need for getting all defensive.

The battle is no where near over.

I really do think this is funny.
Have you ever seen any Monte Python movies? :chuckle:

Claiming victory doesn't mean you've won, Clete.

No, but completely dis-arming your opponent leaving him bleeding from both shoulder sockets does.

YOU still have yet to outline your "biblical worldview". As you have not done this yet, I can only assume that you're blowing smoke and do not, in fact, have a biblical worldview.

You know what they say about assuming things, right?
Look, what would you do with a definition of a Biblical worldview? You would want me to validate it, right? That is the point in your having started the thread in the first place isn't it?
Your premise is that such a worldview cannot be validated and so must be rejected out of hand. But the problem with you saying such a thing is that this is precisely what Jim has successfully shown that your own worldview not only cannot be validated but that you don't even possess the tools required to even attempt to validate it. You can't even get one step into the process because Jim has literally cut your philosophical legs off. So even if I gave you what you are asking for any criticism you offered would automatically be rendered invalid because you can't even know for sure that your brain works correctly based on your own worldview and so you cannot be certain that your own critique isn't an exercise in insanity.

So far you've proven to be a run of the mill, ineffectual Christian fundamentalist who when he runs out of answers just claims that he has won.

You don't know me very well do you?
I'm anything but "run of the mill" and I'm more effectual than some and less than others. I am definitely a fundamentalist but I'm actually slower than I should be in declaring victory in most situations.
And I haven't run out of answers. If anything I ran too short on time. As I've already explained, while I'm at work I get rushed and don't take the proper time to develop the arguments like I should. Jim not only has had the time but is also more experienced at making these specific arguments and so when he weighed in I deferred to his higher level of experience and skill. The mistake I was making with you was that I was going too fast. I was attempting to jump to the end and skip all the steps it takes to get there. Jim, on the other hand, got you to take an all important first step almost right off the bat but then you quickly realized what it meant and recanted. Unfortunately for you, it's too late. You can't take it back, had you not had this conversation perhaps you could have pleaded ignorance but no longer. It is evident that you have in fact seen the point that I started to make and that Jim drove home with about a forty pound sledge hammer.

You haven't won anything, Clete, and my appendages are right where they belong. Hilston hasn't won anything either, his apologetics are a show, nothing more. Neither of you have answered my challenge, and frankly it's not that hard.

What Jim has done is shown your challenge to be nothing more than show. He has shown over and over again that you have no grounds upon which to demand proof or even evidence that any worldview is valid including your own. You claim that we are clinging to a blind faith after having been shown that you are doing that very thing yourself. You the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, only you don't even know for sure what black is!

Your belief is strong, but you can't answer why you believe it.

Even if this were so, which it is not, the point is that neither can you!

You have words like, "biblical worldview", but without an explanation it's good for nothing more than just a smoke screen. Hilston had his "validation of sensory perception" argument, but it was nothing more than a ploy to confuse me out of the argument.

He's not trying to confuse you, on the contrary he's doing just the reverse of that! Don't you get it? It isn't about your sensory perception per se, its about how you know what you think you know. The point isn't about how good your eye's are, it's about how do you know how good your eye's are, it's an epistemological argument not a physiological one.
If you cannot know anything what is the point in having you critique the Biblical worldview? It's insane.

A smoke screen and attempted confusion tactic are not signs of victory. They're signs that you're stalling for time, but, y'all have had 2000 years to figure this out. 2000 years and neither you or Hilston, or anyone else for that matter can tell me why they believe and back it up with something tangible.

How would you know if it were tangible or not, prodigal? How would you know? How would you go about finding out?

I've had my life so far, and I can tell you, I believe in myself

How do you know you actually exist outside the imagination of the jolly green giant?

because I'm here

Where? Inside Gilligan's head, or in the Matrix or where exactly? How do you know where you are? How would you go about finding out?

because I'm strong,

By what standard? How was this standard established?

smart

By what standard? How was this standard established?

and for the most part quite affable.

By what standard? How was this standard established?

My family and friends believe in me because I'm young and they can see the potential in me for greatness.

Can you confirm that your family exists?
Have you ever heard of something called Solipsism? If not I recommend you click the link and read up on it. You might at least figure out how to understand the argument that Jim has made here. The point being that in the context of your own worldview you may as well be a solipsist because you can not even know with any certainty that anything exists at all outside you own mind, including you family and friends.

I don't plan on disappointing my fans out there.

I hope you don't. I hope that you are truly as smart as you are clearly intelligent. That, however, remains to be seen. A step in the that direction would be for you to slow down a notch and review the progress of this thread and reset your thinking long enough to willfully decide that you are going to be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge valid points when they have been made. If you cannot do that, then you are wasting your time even having this conversation in the first place.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[gabriel]

Originally posted by NavyDude

Hilston—

I would like to disagree with you on a few points, though I fear in jumping into the middle of a parlay I might be opening myself up to something already covered. This argument seems to be working on the premise that and understanding of God is somehow necessary to understand anything, or that not believing in Him is enough to satisfy one's existance, yes?

In this last post you made a couple of If X, then Y statements, wherein you juxtaposed your own interpretations of what it is that you believe prodigal meant. That's fallacious arguing as I think you're intelligent enough to know. In particular: X is derived from Y/ I don't like Y/ Thus X cannot be resolved. In any argument of religion, it is only in the theistic individual's worldview that X is derived from Y. Thus if one is to have an objective argument (as much as anything can be called objective in a world that is entirely subjective), one must dismiss the premise one is attempting to prove, and not use it in arguing. You can't use a premise to prove itself.

Dear Navy Dude: I realize this was posted to hilston but please allow me to interject.

Let's take your statement "You can't use a premise to prove itself". The problem could be that hilson learned the technique of "objective argument" from the "Apologetic Toolbox" which is a handy dandy reference guide for modes of pretzel logic. The "Apologetic Toolbox" can be found in "Christian Apologetics in One Lesson" (or as i prefer to call it "pretzel logic 101") on the christianlogicdotcom website.

Mission statement: "Conquer the Culture for Christ".

Objective: "Ultimately, you want to drive them to see that everything which they believe is unreliable and self-contradictory, and that there is only one reliable and non-contradictory belief system, and that is the one revealed by God in the Bible."

 

[Hilston]

Prodigal writes:
This thread wasn't a challenge for all y'all to attack me, but to defend yourselves.

I will gladly do you so if you can stipulate the rules. If I'm going to give you proof, I need to know what qualifies.

Hilston wrote:
On the contrary, Prodigal, YOU started this by demanding proof and verification to validate claims.

Prodigal writes:
What, you don't think that's fair? ... You obviously don't think it's fair otherwise you would have fearlessly answered me from the start.

Sure it's fair. I never said otherwise. But if you're going to presume to demand said proof and verification, it's also fair that we all know what constitutes proof and verification so we don't waste our time. What do you consider to be "proof" and "verification," and how do you validate those criteria?

Hilston wrote:
You tacitly claim to have the ability to evaluate "proof and verification." So I challenged your claim using your own requirements. The burden of proof was thrown heavily in YOUR face, Prodigal.

Prodigal writes:
First of all, we were supposed to be talking about you and the rest of christianity. Instead of fearlessly defending yourself from the beginning, instead of showing me the proof that you all claim you have, you've attempted to defend yourself via counter attack.

I will gladly show you the proof you need as soon as you clue us in on what kind of proof is acceptable and why.

Prodigal writes:
If it's so true, if you really do have the proof, Hilston, why not show me, and THEN go on the offensive?

Because that would be like saying, "Let's have a duel, and I'll let you know what the rules are later."

Prodigal writes:
... even yourself if I remember correctly (and I don't always) have eluded and even said that you have proof. Why not just elaborate? Why not give me an example? If you're so right, convince me, show me your cards. What do you have that makes your belief true?

I have a consistent and coherent worldview that isn't fraught with question-begging assumptions and blind faith commitments. I've already told you this. Those are my cards. If you don't like that proof, don't blame me. You've yet to reveal what you'll accept as proof.

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
Hilston, can you offer any positive arguments for why the Judeo-Christian God is uniquely qualified to account for all human knowledge and experience, including mathematics and logic?

Yes. The Judeo-Christian worldview can account for the "many-and-one" and the "universals-and-particulars" problem and the "mind-body" problem that continue to plague philosophers and cognitive scientists.

Balder writes:
I know you prefer to tear down other's views, ...

It's not a matter of preference, but of Biblical prescription and necessity.

Balder writes:
... but I am interested in why you think logic, order, rationality, math, morality, etc, only make sense in a Christian theistic worldview.

I think so because the Bible says so. But I don't suppose that's really what you meant to ask. I'm guessing you meant to ask, "How do you prove that logic, order, math, etc. only make sense in a Christian Theistic worldview?" We've seen how Prodigal's and Wickwoman's fail miserably. That's one example. I'm still working on trying to understand your view, Balder, and that may take a little time. I can't prove a universal negative; so I can only demonstrate this against views that brought against me.

Balder writes:
What qualities of Christian theism set it apart from all other theistic and non-theistic perspectives, making it uniquely and exclusively capable of accounting for everything?

The trinal nature of God, for one. He is the ultimate Many-and-one, and since God's nature and character are reflected in the creation, we can then observe and account for universals such as abstract laws and logic, as well as particulars such as individual events and entities.

 

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I don't have to dig up any theories. We're dealing with known facts here. You should have done your research before you tried to bandy semantics.

O.K. Let's try this one more time. "Literal" doesn't mean more accurate. And, in the case of KJV, it means less accurate. Because of the fact that it was #1 translated hundreds of years ago #2 doesn't take into account the common usage and slang of the words translated.

For instance, suppose I say to you "have a ball." Now a person 1,000 years from now, living in Africa may translate that phrase and think I told you to either consume a ball or give birth to a ball. You and I know that what I meant was "have fun." However, the literal translation of it might not come out like that. This is why the NIV is more accurate. The scholars have spent countless hours studying the meanings the words had in the day they were spoken, not just translating them into the words we understand today.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What was so angry, rude, and disagreeable about the manner in which it was presented? When you ask your husband to do something, and he says "no problem," do you accuse him of being angry, rude, and disagreeable?

I wasn't referring to your response. I was referring to the original reference to the scripture when Turbo said to me personally that Jesus would "grind me into powder."

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You responded with the very same Scripture that had just been presented to you (Luke 20:18). You weren't trying to elaborate on the whole 'broken' concept." You were trying to convince everybody that the verses Turbo and I had posted came from inaccurate translations.

You can continue to believe that if you want to. However, it will cause you to miss a very meaningful comparison of what a broken and contrite heart is. But maybe you just don't want to think about that so you will continue to believe the discussion was about the inaccuracy of the KJV.

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

I'm sure you haven't missed them but are just occupied with this conversation, but just in case...I have posted two letters addressed to you on the Presupposition thread.

Concerning the triune nature of the Christian Godhead, I personally believe that is an area where real "meeting" is possible between Buddhist and Christian perspectives. I'm interested to hear your take on the "one what and three whos" of the Trinity, how you conceive the simultaneity of oneness and manyness, etc. I'm also curious how you think the Christian worldview uniquely and exclusively solves the mind-body problem (or the soul-body problem), but perhaps these things can become part of our discussion on the other thread.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
I'm sure you haven't missed them but are just occupied with this conversation, but just in case...I have posted two letters addressed to you on the Presupposition thread.

Yes, I'm working on them. Unfortunately, since I'm still in the "discovery" stage of our discussion, my replies are not as frequent as my responses here. It's much easier to shoot fish in a barrel (prodigal, wickwoman) than it is to find out what kind of fish I'm dealing with (you). Don't let it go to your head.

Balder writes:
Concerning the triune nature of the Christian Godhead, I personally believe that is an area where real "meeting" is possible between Buddhist and Christian perspectives. I'm interested to hear your take on the "one what and three whos" of the Trinity, how you conceive the simutaneity of oneness and manyness, etc. I'm also curious how you think the Christian worldview uniquely and exclusively solves the mind-body problem (or the soul-body problem), but perhaps these things can become part of our discussion on the other thread.

Yes, they no doubt will. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

If Christian means what the Bible says it means, then you were never a Christian. And, if you're right [which you're not] then no one is a Christian. Because a Christian is one who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Did you have one?

I didn't think so.

But no one can agree on what the Bible says. Every single denomination, sect, and individual Christian has his, her, or their own interpretation of what "the Bible says," so really, this is a non-answer. Christianity can't agree on the very basics before it starts becoming a feces-throwing contest. I mean, look at TOL, for crying out loud.

A "personal relationship" with an invisible deity happens to strike a lot of people as pretty impersonal, FYI.

Look up "no true Scotsman," educate yourself in a two-minute Google search, and then proceed.