ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Balder]

:think:
:shocked:

:chuckle:

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote:
If you don't have regeneration to drive you toward belief in the Scriptures, what are you left with? Discursive reasoning? Scientific evidence? Based on what? Senses you can't calibrate? Reasoning faculties you cannot verify? Authorities you can't justify? Flesh and blood does not reveal this (Matthew 16:17). Human effort cannot manufacture belief (John 1:13 Romans 9:16). Even if someone were to rise from the dead, unbelievers would not believe (Luke 16:31). Evidence is not sufficient. Human effort is not sufficient. Reasoning is not sufficient. Because the problem is not a lack of evidence or a lack of compelling argument. The problem is rebellion born out of a dead spirit. Only regeneration can make a dead spirit live. Only regeneration can break the desire to rebel. Note that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1Co 2:14)." This doesn't mean the natural man is incapable of understanding the things of the Spirit. Almost anyone can comprehend the teachings of scripture. Rather, he does not receive them because he is a rebel and has no desire to embrace that which indicts him before God. The mind of such a person is described as "carnal" and stands in aggressive opposition to God., "for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Ro 8:7,8).

Clete writes: Then why are you reasoning with Balder?

Why not reason with Balder? You still seem to be hung up on some grave misconceptions about biblical apologetics. There's nothing wrong with reasoning. Just as there's nothing wrong with evidence. Evidence and reasoning are required for biblical apologetics. The point is that neither is sufficient to bring about belief in the scriptures. You made this same mistake before regarding evidence. Now you are making the same mistake regarding the use of reason. Why am I reasoning with Balder? Because the biblical apologetic taught in the scriptures require me to.

Clete writes: If you simply stepped back and looked at what you are doing with him and compared it to something that I might do if I were as familiar with the specific arguments as you are, you would not see any difference at all.

What arguments? I'm still trying to understand what Balder believes, Clete. I have to ask questions, seek clarification, push the limits of his claims, etc. Once I have a better grasp of his view, I'll be able to offer a biblical critique. In the meantime, you'll have to be patient. If this were a face-to-face conversation, it wouldn't take as long. This is an inherent disadvantage of this type of venue.

Clete writes:
I, not believing at all in the doctrine of regeneration would, or at least could, give the same arguments in the same fashion and with the same emotional and intellectual force as you, and end up with the exact same results.

What arguments are you talking about? And what are the scriptures talking about in Titus 3:5?

Clete writes:
Balder will either accept the evidence that you are presenting of his worldview's incoherence or he will not. A belief in regeneration changes neither the approach taken, nor the results seen.

That's incorrect. If a person does not approach the debate recognizing the insufficiency of reasoning and evidence apart from regeneration, his argument will degenerate to unbiblical evidentialism. This is exactly what you've done with Soulman.

Clete writes:
There is simply nothing in our experience that provides any verification whatsoever that regeneration is anything more than simply a doctrine.

That's not what the Bible says. How did Abraham know he was regenerated? His faith was evidence of that which is unseen, i.e., that he had been regenerated and given confidence of an assured hope. Abraham's faith was the substance of that hope.

Ro 4:3 "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

Who is the antecedent of "him"? Answer: Abraham. He was told of his own righteousness by way of his belief, his faith informed him that he had a righteous standing before God. Not by flesh and blood, not by external evidence evaluated by sensory or reasoning faculties, but by an internal faith given to Him by God at regeneration.

Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Hilston wrote:
It's a big deal because evidentialism is the sin of Adam. It's the sin Paul warns about when he says to beware, "lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2Co 11:3).

Clete writes:
I have looked at this idea of yours that evidentialism is the sin of Adam and I have yet to get close to figuring out where you've come up with it.

Did you read 2Co 11:3? Ask yourself this: What was the sin Paul was warning the Corinthians against?

Clete writes:
The sin of Adam was eating of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, pure and simple.

No, the sin of Adam was his consideration a competing gospel based on his own presumed autonomy.

Clete writes:
It may have been a clever argument of some sort that led him to commit that sin, but the argument wasn't the sin, the sin was eating of the Tree.

Is there anything inherently wrong with eating fruit from a tree? No. The eating of the tree was the manifestation of Adam's sinful usurpation of God's law by willfully entertaining another gospel, that with which Lucifer enticed him.

Clete writes:
And it was legalism Paul was warning about not faulty apologetics.

Not at all. He was warning against adopting the rules of the Jewish household instead of heeding the rules of their own.

Clete writes:
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a symbol of the law. The Tree had a ministry of death as did/does the law. If we place ourselves under law then we are cursed and Christ will profit us nothing.

Of course, but that doesn't mean we no longer have to obey the law.

Clete writes:
Instead we should count ourselves dead to the law in Him.

Of course, which means our obedience to the Law is in Him as well. So when we walk in obedience in order to please God, we recognize that the life we now live, our good works and obedience to Mystery law, we live by faith in the Son of God.

Clete writes:
If we are dead, having been put to death by the law in Him, then the law has exhausted its rights concerning us and we can therefore no longer be held accountable to it whether by the letter or by principle.

Is it your view that there are believers who will experience a loss of rewards? Isn't a loss of reward a matter of accountability? And if so, by what standard do you think they will lose reward?

Hilston wrote: Certainly, Lucifer was crafty, but what did he do that would warrant that description? One thing was that he didn't go directly to Adam, although Adam was standing right beside Eve the whole time ("... she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" Ge 3:6). When we consider Paul's fear and warning in 2Co 11, the beguiling of which he speaks describes more than just being deceived by a Satanic "end around," as Adam experienced (and errantly permitted to happen).

Satan's craftiness goes beyond his indirect approach, rather, it is the fact that he enticed Adam with the prospect of being his own lawmaker. That was, after all, the temptation of the forbidden fruit: It was borne of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (or, "The truly evil good" if we look at it hendiadystically). The actual aim of Lucifer's question, "Hath God said?" was to get Adam to justify or condemn God on his own terms. It didn't matter which. In other words, Lucifer was suggesting, "Why don't you use your own reason, Adam, your own assessment, your own standard of evaluation to ascertain whether or not God's mandate makes sense to you? Why don't you become your own lawmaker?"

Clete writes:
You are reading a hell of a lot into what the text offers Jim.

Not at all. Everything I've said is there in the text, either explicitly stated, or implicitly inferred.

Clete writes:
The simple fact is that Lucifer who at the time was unfallen and therefore trusted by Eve, deceived her into believing that it was not only okay to eat of the Tree but that she would be doing a good thing.

You. Have got. To be kidding me.

Clete writes:
He appealed to emotions, her good and righteous desire to be like God. He deceived her into thinking that eating was a short cut and she took it and Adam, knowing better, went along with her.

Adam was standing right there the whole time, Clete. Read the text. She turned to him after she ate of it. Adam disrespected his own headship and authority over Eve by allowing Lucifer to approach her, by not stepping up and declaring the Word of Lord on the matter. And you accuse me of reading a hell of a lot into what the text offers? You assume Lucifer was innocent? You assume Eve's desire was good and righteous? Good grief!

Clete writes:
It seems to me that stretching this episode of Scripture to have it be involved somehow with an approach to apologetics is just that, a stretch.

Ooooookay. Thanks for sharing.

Hilston wrote:
Of course Adam's answer should have been: "Yes, God hath said, and yes He means what He says" (presuppositionalism) But instead, Adam's response could be characterized like this: "Hmm. Good point, Lucifer. God warns us that we will surely die if we eat the fruit of that tree. But what evidence do I have that this true? What does it mean to 'die,' after all, I've never seen anyone die before" (evidentialism).

Clete writes:
There is simply no way that you could ever get, "Hmm. Good point, Lucifer. God warns us that we will surely die if we eat the fruit of that tree. But what evidence do I have that this true? What does it mean to 'die,' after all, I've never seen anyone die before" out of the text in Genesis by simply reading it. It's just not in there. You are reading your theology into the text.

Sorry, Clete. But it's there. What was Lucifer's claim? You shall not surely die. What was Adam's response? "No, God said we must not eat of that tree"? No. It was "Maybe we can eat of that tree." It's what is patently inferred from the text:

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

Adam didn't intervene when he should have during the dialogue between Eve and Lucifer. And he didn't stop her from eating from the tree. What other motive could Adam have, standing right there and allowing all of this to go on without a word? He was an evidentialist, Clete. He wanted to see what would happen, he wanted external evidence to verify God's Word.

Hilston wrote:
By so doing, Adam asserted his own imagined autonomy, presuming to have sufficient knowledge of good and evil beyond that which God revealed to him. It appears to me that the eating of the fruit coincided perfectly with Adam's presumed usurpation of God as Lawmaker. The eating of fruit is almost incidental (almost), the very act being the outward declaration of what had already occurred in Adam's mind and heart. Consider it like this: The fruit was not the thing. It was the presumption of knowing good and evil autonomously, apart from God's law. There is no way Adam could have eaten the fruit from that tree without this presumption having already occurred. The eating was a manifestation of Adam's presumption to know good and evil apart from God. It was Man's act of independence from God, becoming his own lawmaker, becoming as God, becoming his own judge of good and evil.

Clete writes:
There are a thousand different things that could have been in Adam's mind. You cannot know what you presume to know in the above statement.

Sure I can. The text bears it out. Paul affirms my understanding of Genesis 3.

Clete writes:
I understand why you assume what you assume but now you are begging the question by presuming to know what was in Adam's mind in order to attempt to prove that he was guilty of evidentialism which would have been in his mind.

Um ... what?

Hilston wrote:
Thus, when Adam was found by God, hiding because of his newly realized nakedness, Adam's guilt and presumed autonomy was exposed (no pun intended). And God's question was both leading and loaded: "Who told you that you were naked?" We could paraphrase God's question this way: "You're not supposed to know that, Adam. You're supposed to get your information from ME. Will you now be your own lawmaker?"

Clete writes:
If you previous assumption is correct then this assumption could be correct but not necessarily. This is the danger of reading theology into the text in the way you are doing here. Frankly I'm a bit surprised at you really. It isn't like you to do this sort of thing and regularly call other on it when you detect it. I recommend simply sticking with what the text actually says and going from there.

That's exactly what I've done, Clete. The events, the dialogue, the entire setting intimates each point I've raised. Then, when we get to 2Corinthians, Paul affirms those inferences. If you want to have your evidentialist cake and to presuppositionally eat it, you're going to have a major conflict on your hands. You're going to have to choose one or the other.

 

[Soulman]

Clete, haven't had a chance to repsond to your last post, but have a quick question: Are cows logical? Are cows also dependent on (without giving proper credit) the logical coherence of the biblical worldview in order to know alive-good, dead-bad?

Since cows were not made in the image of God, and have no consciousness of God, and no awareness of "right" or "wrong," I think it's fair to say that the concept of alive-good, dead-bad is not (as it is for humans) a "moral dilemma" for a cow. Yet, apes and cows "know" alive-good, dead-bad without the assistance of the absolute moral yardstick of the biblical worldview.

According to you, in a "logically incoherent" worldview, there is no "logical" reason for a mother (of any species) to value the life of her child (or "know" that her child is dead). Yet, higher non-human life forms demonstrate an "awareness" of this concept every day.

What "yardstick" are they using?

 

[Soulman]

Gotta love it. If you two can't agree on something as basic to the faith as the Fall of man, why should we take either of you seriously about anything else?

 

[Hilston]

Soulman write:
Gotta love it. If you two can't agree on something as basic to the faith as the Fall of man, why should we take either of you seriously about anything else?

Notice the form of reasoning Soulman has adopted: If two people disagree, neither of them can be correct.

Soulman, since you and Clete disagree about something so basic as logic or reason, why should we take either or you seriously about anything?

:kookoo:

 

[prodigal]

Hilston,

I don't think Soulman's point was as general as you'd like to present it. He was making specific reference to a specifc topic of argument. I think it was a little to deep a subject to be written off with such a generalization. I haven't been sticking my nose into this discussion, and I don't really intend to after this.

What Soulman pointed out is the christian inability to come to terms with themselves. Soulman's idea of logic and Clete's idea of logic are what appears to be two different things, which only makes sense because they are both basing their arguments on their own worldviews. Two christians not coming to agreement on the fall of man is slightly more significant than a christian and one who follows randomness having a disagreement.

That's my two cents.

 

[Soulman]

Hilston, you're as predictable as a Chatty Cathy doll. Pull the right string, and away you go.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by prodigal
Two christians not coming to agreement on the fall of man is slightly more significant than a christian and one who follows randomness having a disagreement.

You're naive.

Originally posted by Soulman
Hilston, you're as predictable as a Chatty Cathy doll. Pull the right string, and away you go.

You're just jealous.

 

[prodigal]

Hilston,

You're naive.

See, I don't understand how this answers anything. Christianity is plagued by in-fighting. This in-fighting ranges from the fall of Adam to how one comes to salvation.

Hilston, if christians can't agree on the fall, and if christians can't agree on the system of how one comes to salvation, how are we to believe in the validity of a christian definition of a "sin nature", or "salvation"?

 

[Hilston]

All men are liars, prodigal. Myself included. You have to check everyone's claims against the inerrant, infallible Word of God. Christians debate what the Word of God teaches. That doesn't make the Word of God wrong or suspect.

It is, of course, quite convenient to dismiss Christianity on those grounds. But the logic doesn't follow. When you stand before God, you won't have the excuse: "I didn't submit to You because all these Christians were fighting with each other."

 

[prodigal]

All men lie, but to label them all liars is just as convenient as my excuses. Christians are supposed to determine what the law of god says, but isn't their determination in itself determined by their own agenda? I've found that the bible can and will say whatever the reader wishes it say. The fact that there is no general consensus, but there is in-fighting does stand as an obvious example of christians not really knowing what to make of what the bible says.

And if the bible is, in fact, inerrant and infallible, than it is being abused by the errant, fallible minds of those who are interpreting it according to their own whims.

Is it possible, in your opinion (all men being liars) for there to be an accurate intepretation of what the bible actually says? If I'm hearing you correctly the bible is no way shape or form able to be deciphered by us sinners.

And please, I'm being both fecitious and questioning. I don't like my inquisitives being quoted as declaratives or imperatives.

 

[prodigal]

and also, the holy ghost can't possibly be telling all of these christians all of these different doctrines and where to find them in the bible. And if you determine who is, and who isn't "in" by what they are teaching, you could be guilty of the same subjective interpretation of the bible, an interpretation based on your wish of what you want to be found in the material.

 

[Balder]

Temple,

I'm aware that I haven't told you why I'm no longer Christian, as I'd promised in an earlier letter. It could be a lengthy discussion, if you were really interested in all the whys and whatfors. But briefly, there are two basic reasons why I left the Christian faith. The first is that it was just the natural progression of my studies: the more I learned about Buddhism, the more I found that tradition to be compelling, and closer to my spiritual experience. The second is the growing doubts I had at the time about particular elements of Christian teaching: blood sacrifice soteriology, eternal damnation, exclusivity of salvation through faith in Christ, and certain portraits of God in the OT and the NT, to name the most prominent ones. I was also frustrated with the relative lack of appreciation for, attention to, and development of contemplative aspects of faith in modern Christianity. This is just a thumb-nail sketch, and there are other reasons as well that I haven't touched on, but as I said above...to go into detail about why I left Christianity, and how my beliefs about it have changed over time (even up to now), would be a discussion in itself.

Peace,
Balder

 

[temple2006]

Thank you very much, Balder. That is really all I wanted to know. And guess what, I agree with you. My journey has been a difficult one due to the fact that it was extremely difficult for me to leave my former beliefs because I come from a dysfunctional family who taught by using guilt and shame. When I came to reject the blood-atonement soteriology, I felt as if I had my feet planted in thin air. Not comfortable, I can tell you.

In my view, the atonement thing came to us via a misinterpretation in Jesus' message. I have much study to do regarding the concept of martyrdom and non-violence. Right now it appears to me that there was a terrible misunderstanding of that message. Buddhism appears to have much in common with my version of Christianity and where they diverge, I think is mostly in the concept of an afterlife. I readily admit the possibility of reincarnation but not so of it's probability. And as for justice, isn't that our (human) way of thinking, where we would want our piece of flesh?

 

[Soulman]

Clete, reviewed your response (post 207), frankly don’t see anything worth responding to. Every time I raise an objection, all you’ve got to say is “Logical coherence is impossible without the god of the Bible,” which means that arguing with you is logically incoherent, since every argument I make “proves” that you must be right!

Elephants and dolphins also demonstrate a knowledge of, or at least an ability to make a distinction between, alive-good, dead-bad. In fact, the survival instinct of non-human life forms of all kinds hints at the same awareness. When threatened, virtually every living creature on the planet will flee, or attempt to defend itself (even non-sentient plant life “knows” alive-good, dead-bad; otherwise why not just curl up and die rather than compete for scarce resources?). Is a rutabaga “logically coherent”? Are cows logical? Is “logic” necessary for a cow to know alive-good, dead-bad? Are cows, apes, elephants, dolphins etc obeying an absolute “moral imperative” of alive-good, dead-bad when experiencing the loss of a family member? If not, how do THEY know the difference?

Another example. Not sure which zoo it was, but a small child fell into a monkey exhibit. Before help could be summoned, a female monkey retrieved the child, scaled the wall, and handed the child back to its mother. I have never heard a Christian claim that lower life forms have the law of God written on their hearts. If you are correct, that without the god of the Bible logical coherence is impossible, knowing what we know of animal behavior, seems we must either lower the bar for humans, or raise the bar for the family cow.

Worth repeating: If apes, elephants, dolphins, cows and every non-human life form on the planet know alive-good, dead-bad, what “yardstick” are they using?

Hilston, would be interested in hearing what you've got to say about this.

Season's greetings.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Soulman

Clete, reviewed your response (post 207), frankly don’t see anything worth responding to. Every time I raise an objection, all you’ve got to say is “Logical coherence is impossible without the god of the Bible,” which means that arguing with you is logically incoherent, since every argument I make “proves” that you must be right!

EXACTLY! Now you're beginning to understand! (I'm not kidding.)

Elephants and dolphins also demonstrate a knowledge of, or at least an ability to make a distinction between, alive-good, dead-bad. In fact, the survival instinct of non-human life forms of all kinds hints at the same awareness. When threatened, virtually every living creature on the planet will flee, or attempt to defend itself (even non-sentient plant life “knows” alive-good, dead-bad; otherwise why not just curl up and die rather than compete for scarce resources?).

Last time I checked, Elephants, dolphins, chimps and all other living things all live in the same God created universe you do.

Is a rutabaga “logically coherent”? Are cows logical? Is “logic” necessary for a cow to know alive-good, dead-bad?

Yes. Absolutely. They are not aware that what they are doing is logical but that doesn't mean it is incoherent.

Are cows, apes, elephants, dolphins etc obeying an absolute “moral imperative” of alive-good, dead-bad when experiencing the loss of a family member? If not, how do THEY know the difference?

Again, any creature can respond to a negative simulous response in a logically ocherent manner without having to understand that it is logical or even that there is a God who created them. You are missing the point! The point is that you, who are able to understand such concepts and think about questions like "Is there a God?" cannot account for the logical order of the universe in any of its nuance without the existence of a creator who Himself is logical without being logically incoherent yourself and thus proving yourself wrong.
Like you said, every argument you attempt to give to the contrary argues against your own position. Every time you point out some nuance of creation that is logical coherent you add to the mountain of evidence against yourself.
Here's yet another....

Another example. Not sure which zoo it was, but a small child fell into a monkey exhibit. Before help could be summoned, a female monkey retrieved the child, scaled the wall, and handed the child back to its mother.

This, I believe to be a myth. The child would perhaps not have been killed but Apes are fundamentally unable to "scale the walls" of zoos first of all and secondly the ape would have seen the child as an intruder and would have been nervous at least and more likely agitated. It would not have wanted to be anywhere near a human mother with whom it was unfamiliar. There is just no way that this actually happened. Not that it matters.

I have never heard a Christian claim that lower life forms have the law of God written on their hearts. If you are correct, that without the god of the Bible logical coherence is impossible, knowing what we know of animal behavior, seems we must either lower the bar for humans, or raise the bar for the family cow.

The family cow and apes in zoos are both created creatures with God given instincts and behaviors. Boy, that was hard to explain, wasn't it?

Worth repeating: If apes, elephants, dolphins, cows and every non-human life form on the planet know alive-good, dead-bad, what “yardstick” are they using?

They are not consciously using one but it is the same one you use to make the same sort of decisions. The difference is I can account for the yard sticks existence and you cannot.

Hilston, would be interested in hearing what you've got to say about this.

Hilston will not be posting here any more as he was banned the other day. I can't go into details as that is a breach of protocal but I didn't want you to be thinking he was ignoring you.

Season's greetings.

And a merry Christmas to you!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're just a fountain head of things that cannot be explained without the existence of God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Soulman]

What "logical order" are you talking about? Is all perceived "order" necessarily "logical"?

What you have admitted is that moral absolutes are not necessary in order to make the alive-good, dead-bad distinction.

Do humans possess a "survival instinct"? If so, then humans can make the alive-good, dead-bad distinction, too, with or without moral absolutes. Even if God created man with a conscience, man would still need a "survival instinct" to defend himself in a post fall, hostile environment. Is "survival" a moral dilemma?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Soulman

What "logical order" are you talking about? Is all perceived "order" necessarily "logical"?

This is a self contradictory question!
Logic is required in order to perceive anything at all, including order AND disorder. In fact, without logic you could not tell that something was illogical!
The universe must be logical because of the rational impossibility of the contrary. If the universe were inherently random then rationality would not be a possibility in the first place. So the mere fact that we are able to ask the question is proof that the universe must be logical.

What you have admitted is that moral absolutes are not necessary in order to make the alive-good, dead-bad distinction.

Death is not immoral. Who ever said it was? Murder is immoral, but that's a different topic.
Animals and human are able to process sensory input. Bad stimuli are reacted to in a logical way even by things which are not capable of understanding the notion of logic. My worldview can easily explain such a situation; yours not only cannot explain it, but is actually falsified by it.

Do humans possess a "survival instinct"? If so, then humans can make the alive-good, dead-bad distinction, too, with or without moral absolutes.

Yes! Thank you for proving your own worldview false yet again. That's three times in this one post alone.

Even if God created man with a conscience, man would still need a "survival instinct" to defend himself in a post fall, hostile environment.

Umm, was that logic you just used?
Yeah, make that 4 times.

Is "survival" a moral dilemma?

What are you talking about?

Look, the bottom line is this. You make the ridiculous suggestion (for the sake of argument) that the universe could be completely random and that any order we see could just be accidental. You and I BOTH have repeatedly proven that this simply cannot be the case. The universe is logical. If it were not, science would not be possible, mathematics could not explain the things it does in the universe (math is a form of logic), you could not detect the difference between what is orderly and was is not, you would not be able to formulate the concept that the question is about much less the question itself, etc, etc, etc. The notion that logic is not real is irrational by definition. What is the point in rehashing this any further?

For you to continue to deny the existence of logic is literally insane. Why don't we move on with an agreement that we can even have a coherent conversation because the existence of logic is real, and that the universe cannot therefore, be inherently random.

I suspect that you will resist such an agreement because you will of course anticipate the next logical question, which is how do we account for the fact that logic exists and the universe is a place in which things make sense?

If this is so, I encourage you to not allow the existence of difficult questions scare you into sticking your head in the sand. Any worldview that cannot answer such questions is not worth investing any more of your time into in the first place, so if you can answer the question do so, if you cannot then deal honestly with the ramifications of that and move on to something better. I will pledge to you to do the same.



I just reread this post and realized that it is sort of open-ended or at least the question I posed is sort of vague in that there is about a million different dirrections one could go in an attempt to answer it. Allow me to ask a more specific question in hopes of moving this conversation into newer territory.

By what means do you (you personally) determine the truth of any claim? And I don't just mean the big claims like "God exists.", but any truth claim at all.

• A Ferrari will go faster than 200 mph.
  Water will turn to a gas if heated to a certain temperature.
  Murder is wrong.
  The desk I'm sitting at is made of wood.

Any truth claim at all. By what means do you verify it's truth? Logic, a sixth sense, little angels speaking in your ear, the Bible, divine revelation, what? (These of course are not the only options; I just shot a few out there so you could get a sense for the sort of answer I'm looking for. I wanted to make sure you understood what I was asking.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Hi, Clete,

Did you see my post #208 to you? If you don't feel inspired to respond to it, that's cool with me, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention since my conversation with Hilston seems to have come to a standstill.

Peace,
B.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder

Hi, Clete,

Although I'm quite involved in a parallel discussion, I wanted to make a comment with regard to your recent assertion that non-Christians have no coherent reason for considering the murder of a child a tragedy. As I believe I indicated on another thread, I do understand where presuppositionalists are coming from in their arguments, but I believe this comment is taking things too far, even within a presuppositionalist framework. On a personal level, where you love an individual, you have hopes for the promise they show, you care for their well-being and happiness, etc, etc, you do not need to hold to a theistic worldview to feel the untimely demise of a child is tragic, or to mourn a stray bullet to her head. You don't need an elaborate metaphysics to appreciate or feel that loss, or for that feeling of loss to be real and meaningful. Even an atheist materialist can coherently lament the loss of a child within his worldview, because in his worldview, life is rare and precious, lasting only a handful of decades. If this time is cut in half, or worse, I don't think it is incoherent at all for an atheist to regard such a loss as a tragedy.

I understand that you may be thinking of "ultimate," or metaphysical reasons why the death of a child is tragic and not just "natural," but if you think about it, the metaphysical worldview of Christianity doesn't necessarily render such a loss "tragic" either. If you hold that "absent from the body" means you must be "present with the Lord," especially for innocent children and saved Christians, then why should such a death be considered as more "ultimately" and coherently "tragic" than from an atheist's viewpoint? If you believe, however, that a non-Christian 7 year old killed in a drive-by shooting is destined for eternal conscious torment as punishment for her sins...well, that indeed IS more tragic. But the tragedy here depends upon believing the Creator of that child is quite monstrous indeed, and this belief should not be held up as a morally superior or more coherent worldview.

Peace,
Balder

First of all I think you took what I said too far. Of course atheist experience tragedy and understand it as such but they cannot, if pressed to do so, account for their ability to detect it.
Also, Soulman was talking about tragedy in the context of a completely random universe which is even more difficult to defend because "tragedy" can only exist when something out of the ordinary happens and in a universe that is inherently random, nothing could ever be considered ordinary and so the idea if "out of the ordinary" would never come up and so therefore, neither would the idea of tragedy. And, by the way, neither would this whole line of thought ever come up in an inherently random universe, logic itself would not exist and so since we are even able to be having this conversation we can know that such an inherently random universe is not reality.
As for tragedy in a Christian worldview, it can, as you suggested get sort of confusing. One has to be clear as to what is being discussed. There can be no doubt that the accidental death of a 4 year old child is tragic, but as you have correctly pointed out, there is a silver lining to that dark cloud. The child is in a better place (or will be, theological positions differ on this issue, but Calvinists are the only ones I know of who even think the child might immediately be sent to hell, all others either send the child to God immediately or upon the child's resurrection). So the child's death is perhaps not an ultimate tragedy but it is no less devastating to the child's loved one's and is in that context, tragic.
Atheist would not even be able to explain how they are able to detect that the child is dead in the first place as they are unable to explain the existence of their own senses and whether or not those senses are providing them with accurate information. As far as atheists know, this is all happening in the matrix and is nothing more than a computer generated dream.
As for your worldview, I don't know. How would you go about determining whether something that you feel is a tragedy actually happened in reality?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'm really sorry I missed this post of yours! This sort of thing happens with me far too often. I'll try to pay closer attention.