Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[SUTG]

The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

So is this what you are calling your proof?! This is what you need to prove. This is the part of your argument that everyone takes issue with. This is the crux of you argument that we have been wanting you to show for the rest of the thread. I hope you're not thing that this statement in and of itself counts for some sort of proof! :dizzy:

It is proven by asking this question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible?

Anyone can assert whatever they wish. For a great example, see your quote above. However, things get interesting after the assertion. How well can the assertion be defended? You have shown that you are unable to defend your assertion.

I don't know how much longer I can sustain repeating myself.

You done a great job of it so far. Let's look at another example:

You cannot invoke logic at all without proving the biblical worldview. The second you employ logic, you've proven the existence and attributes of God.

Uh, no. Something else must be true for your quote to be true. You are not arguing transcendentally, but circularly. (and poorly)

I can assert as well. I can say "If you type a response to this post, you will have proved that the TAG is a worthless argument." I can also rephrase and repeat my assertion over for thirty pages and an entire debate. Is that a proof? If you choose to answer, the TAG will be refuted. Does this kind of argumentation impress you?

Of course, I agree that if your assertion "without God, you can't prove anything" is true, then it is also true that if m_d proves anything, it shows that God exists. Not transcendental argumentation, but dull tautology.

Your proof amounts to the following:

If God is necessary for knowledge, and knowledge exists, God exists. :yawn:

Of course, you would like to take away that first "if" by asserting it into oblivion. Sure, if God was necessary for justifying knowledge, induction, etc., you'd have a fine proof indeed. Now, you just have to show that God is necessary for justifying induction, and knowledge. Hint: Typing "God is the necessary precondition for induction" doesn't count.

This is how the TAG falls everytime.

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,
I'll cut to the core problem in your last post(and your whole argument), we'll get back to the rest later. It is completely and unequivocally circular!

Hi Mighty_Duck,
It is perfectly valid to use one presupposition to prove another.

Yes, it is logical to conclude A -> B. (A is your presupposition). If you then claim B -> A, you have a circular argument on your hands, and you can safely throw the whole thing away. This is what we have here. You claim:

It's not circular. These are separate arguments.

These are not seperate arguments, they are two halves of the same circle. Lets replace:
A = God
B = Logic

And we have your argument. Logic is true because of God. God is true because of a logical argument. If you don't believe it, look at your own words:

"Without God, you can't prove anything"
How do you prove that?
It is proven by asking this question: what must ... <logical explanation follows>
You seem to be using logic to reach that conlcusion. How do you justify your use of logic?
My use of logic is justified by the existence and attributes of God.
How do you prove God exists?
without Him, you can't prove anything.

We have gone full circle. Begged the question. Chased our own tail for too long.

You may claim this is radical skepticism, and you would be right. The way us humans get out of this loop is to declare axioms and end the circularity. I'm curious how you can escape this loop without those evil axioms that you are so set against using.

..you have not been able to show any flaw in my reasoning, which is about as straightforward as it can get..You have a vested interest in not understanding my reasoning, and in the absence of any cogent critique of it, all your plaints come off as anecdotal: You just don't like what I'm saying.

This is a major flaw. It can't be resolved without special pleading, which is tantamount to accepting the use of axioms. The circular nature of your argument has been pointed out to you by at least three other posters here, one of them even a christian. It has nothing to do with what I like, it is not valid logically!
I believe you have a much greater vested interest in rejecting a valid critique for it: It would undermine your entire recent debate, most of your posts on this site and other places on the web, and your whole evangelistic strategy.

 

[Stratnerd]

SS said

1. I understand that epistemology takes primacy over science.

If you think of epistemology as philosophy and science as based on observation then I have to disagree. Without the proverbial "reality check" we could (and obviously do) create any worldview we wanted.

Because you can create a tidy little world in your head doesn't mean the real word needs to play along.

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to SUTG and mighty_duck ...

Combined reply to SUTG and mighty_duck ...

Hi SUTG,

Hilston wrote: The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

So is this what you are calling your proof?! This is what you need to prove. This is the part of your argument that everyone takes issue with.

Of course they do. And everytime they do, they reaffirm the proof.

This is the crux of you argument that we have been wanting you to show for the rest of the thread. I hope you're not thing that this statement in and of itself counts for some sort of proof!

Of course it is proof! It is cogent. It is intelligible. It is proof.

Hilston wrote: It is proven by asking this question: what must be true or necessary in order to make human experience intelligible?

Anyone can assert whatever they wish.

No they can't, not without sacrificing rationality and intelligibility. It is often tried by non- and anti-theists of all stripes. Either (a) they end up asserting the existence and attributes of God under a counterfeit name (like the IPU or the FSM or the UG) or (b) they assert a conception that is self-refuting or internally incoherent.

For a great example, see your quote above.

The Biblical claim is not merely one of various equally possible assertions, SUTG. It is uniquely cogent and intelligible, to the exclusion of all others.

However, things get interesting after the assertion. How well can the assertion be defended? You have shown that you are unable to defend your assertion.

It's been defended, SUTG. Neither you nor anyone has been able to refute it without question-begging or appealing to magic.

Hilston wrote: You cannot invoke logic at all without proving the biblical worldview. The second you employ logic, you've proven the existence and attributes of God.

Uh, no. Something else must be true for your quote to be true. You are not arguing transcendentally, but circularly. (and poorly)

What are you talking about? Everyone reasons circularly, SUTG, yourself included. That is why the argument must be made on a meta-level. How do you define a transcendental argument, SUTG? If my argument is a meta-construct, then it's transcendental. It's not exclusive to Christian presuppositionalists. Other philosophers and apologists have studied and formulated this kind of reasoning.

I can assert as well. I can say "If you type a response to this post, you will have proved that the TAG is a worthless argument."

It's an empty assertion, SUTG. Transcendental argumentation (do you even know what it is?) still has worth, despite your assertion. Whereas the testimony of the Bible, that your view reduces all reasoning and knowledge to absurdity, is not empty at all, and in fact has been demonstrated.

I can also rephrase and repeat my assertion over for thirty pages and an entire debate. Is that a proof? If you choose to answer, the TAG will be refuted. Does this kind of argumentation impress you?

Of course not. It is inane, incoherent, unintelligible. Whereas the Biblical proof is cogent and comprehensible and irrefragable.

Of course, I agree that if your assertion "without God, you can't prove anything" is true, then it is also true that if m_d proves anything, it shows that God exists. Not transcendental argumentation, but dull tautology.

You don't seem to understand what a tautology is. Or perhaps you've forgotten.

Your proof amounts to the following:

If God is necessary for knowledge, and knowledge exists, God exists.

That's not it, SUTG. God is not the conclusion. God is the major premise. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Not "the existence of knowledge is the proof of God."

Of course, you would like to take away that first "if" by asserting it into oblivion. Sure, if God was necessary for justifying knowledge, induction, etc., you'd have a fine proof indeed. Now, you just have to show that God is necessary for justifying induction, and knowledge. Hint: Typing "God is the necessary precondition for induction" doesn't count.

Remove God, and what are you left with? No knowledge. No induction. No intelligibilty. Utter absurdity.

This is how the TAG falls everytime.

You seem so convinced, but your arguments are empty.

Hi mighty_duck,

After I read your reply, I was left shaking my head. I really don't want to be rude or disrespectful. Your post seems to have been written by someone else. Or perhaps I'm just starting to detect something that I should've seen earlier.

I'll cut to the core problem in your last post (and your whole argument), we'll get back to the rest later. It is completely and unequivocally circular!

With that I have to ask: Do you know what a circular argument is, m_d?

Hilston wrote: It is perfectly valid to use one presupposition to prove another.

Yes, it is logical to conclude A -> B. (A is your presupposition). If you then claim B -> A, you have a circular argument on your hands, ...

Look m_d, you really need to consult a textbook or some website that will give you some of the basics of rhetoric, and then come back. The stuff you're saying is embarrassing, and you don't seem to even be aware of it.

Hilston wrote: It's not circular. These are separate arguments.

These are not seperate arguments, they are two halves of the same circle. Lets replace:
A = God
B = Logic

And we have your argument. Logic is true because of God. God is true because of a logical argument.

Where did you get that, m_d? That's not my argument. I've made my argument clear. You've even repeated it back to me. But then you invent these rejiggered non sequitur predications that are NOT my arguments.

If you don't believe it, look at your own words:

[Hilston wrote] "Without God, you can't prove anything"
[m_d asks] How do you prove that?
[Hilston wrote:] It is proven by asking this question: what must ... <logical explanation follows>​

Of course, m_d. On this planet, in this universe, logical explanations are required for rational discourse and discursive reasoning. If you want some other kind of explanation other than a logical one, please tell me what kind that would be.

You seem to be using logic to reach that conlcusion. How do you justify your use of logic?

You just changed the subject. Do you realize that?

Hilston wrote: My use of logic is justified by the existence and attributes of God.

How do you prove God exists?

You just changed the subject again. Do you realize that?

We have gone full circle. Begged the question. Chased our own tail for too long.

m_d, try to get this: You're embarrassing yourself. There is no question-begging going on. Do you even know what it means? You don't even seem to be constructing coherent lines of thought. You're all over the place, conflating "logical explanations" with "presuppositions" and "proofs." When you want to formulate a logical construct, you can't just say "'A' is your presupposition" and expect the chain to flow. It is flawed from the outset. Please try to understand your terms better, because it's getting silly.

You may claim this is radical skepticism, and you would be right. The way us humans get out of this loop is to declare axioms and end the circularity.

Axioms do not end circularity. They merely draw a curtain in front of them: "Pay no attention to the circularity behind that curtain." It's myth-making, m_d. Blind faith in the non-existent magic of the Great and Terrible Oz Axiom.

I'm curious how you can escape this loop without those evil axioms that you are so set against using.

Name a single thing I've claimed that fits the definition of an axiom: "A self-evident or universally recognized truth ... a self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate."

Hilston wrote: ... you have not been able to show any flaw in my reasoning, which is about as straightforward as it can get..You have a vested interest in not understanding my reasoning, and in the absence of any cogent critique of it, all your plaints come off as anecdotal: You just don't like what I'm saying.

This is a major flaw.

Do you hear yourself, m_d? Are we even having a conversation at this point? It seems you're off in some other discussion, because this stuff about axioms has no place in this discussion.

It can't be resolved without special pleading, which is tantamount to accepting the use of axioms.

What does that even mean?

The circular nature of your argument has been pointed out to you by at least three other posters here, one of them even a christian. It has nothing to do with what I like, it is not valid logically!

All you and these others have done is demonstrated to me that you're not even clear on what a circular argument is! SUTG doesn't know what a tautology is. What is it with you people? You bluster about, declaring tautologies and circularities and axioms, and at every turn you show that you don't know what they are. What is most egregious is the fact that you commit the very fallacies you accuse me of.

Realize that this website is not a friendly environment for the likes of me. You may not know this, but I was banned from this site a year ago. Most people on this site are diametrically opposed to my teachings and my methods of argument. I claim my methods are biblical, and I can give extensive defense for that claim that has yet to be refuted. It doesn't bother me at all that non-theists and theists alike are opposed to me. I view that as a feature, not a failure, of the biblical worldview. I find it especially significant that non-theists and theists alike, in their opposition to the biblical worldview, commit the very same fallacies and fall into the very same irrationalities in their efforts to critique the biblical view. For all your claims to refuting the claims of the Bible, you've only demonstrated a weak or non-existent grasp of the basic components of logic. Earlier you asked for a syllogism, but I've yet to see anything from your pen that even remotely resembles one. This is a common pattern that I encounter. My opponents pick up a few terms of rhetoric (tautology; petitio principii; syllogism; etc.), and suddenly they imagine they're equipped to argue like logicians. Sadly, they usually just end up embarrassing themselves. What you've written, to wit, your latest post, has demonstrated this profusely. Or perhaps you're just tired. Get some rest and come back when you're at your best.

New fresh can,
Jim

 

[sentientsynth]

If you think of epistemology as philosophy and science as based on observation then I have to disagree. Without the proverbial "reality check" we could (and obviously do) create any worldview we wanted.

Because you can create a tidy little world in your head doesn't mean the real word needs to play along.

Stratnerd, I couldn't agree more.

SS

 

[DFT_Dave]

C. S. Lewis wrote this in his book, Miracles

The self-contradiction of the Naturalist

"Now it would clearly be preposterous to apply this rule to each particular thought as we come to it and yet not to apply it to all thoughts taken collectively, that is, to human reason as a whole. Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind I a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense.

But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord.' And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that.

The shortest and simplest form of this argument is that given by Professor J. B. S. Haldane in Possible Worlds (p. 209). He writes, 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' The trouble about atoms is not that they are material but that they are, presumably, irrational. Or even if they were rational they do not produce my beliefs by honestly arguing with me and proving their point but by compelling me to think in a certain way. I am still subject to brute force: my beliefs have irrational causes.

God is rational
atoms are irrational
man is rational
man comes from God :think:

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Hi noguru,

You writeerhaps my memory is failing me, but as far as I recall, never have I made any such arguments. I don't agree with them. I've typed a massive number of words over the past 30 days, and nowhere do I recall making the claims you've assigned to me.

I notice you identify yourself as a Christian. Do you agree with the Bible when it says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge"?

Sartre was a Cap'n Crunch addict.
Jim

Hi Jim,

Do you mean these quotes;

Job 28:28
And to man He said, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, And to depart from evil is understanding.'

The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

Ps 34:11
Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.

Ps 111:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever.

Pr 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pr 1:29
Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the Lord,

Pr 2:5
Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.

Pr 8:13
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate.

Pr 9:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

or how about these:

Pr 10:27 - [In Context|Read Chapter]
The fear of the Lord prolongs days, But the years of the wicked will be shortened.

Pr 14:26 - [In Context|Read Chapter]
In the fear of the Lord there is strong confidence, And His children will have a place of refuge.

Pr 14:27
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, To turn one away from the snares of death.

Pr 15:16
Better is a little with the fear of the Lord, Than great treasure with trouble.

Pr 15:33
The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom, And before honor is humility.

Pr 16:6
In mercy and truth Atonement is provided for iniquity; And by the fear of the Lord one departs from evil.

I think the ovreall thrust of these quotes is to equate "fear of the Lord" with respect for humility and the wisdom that is gained from humility. Notice how knowledge is used. Notice how humility, wisdom and understanding are used. Knowledge is not wisdom. Knowledge is not understanding. The knowledge that is gained from the wisdom of humility is understanding.

Have you ever heard the saying "It is better to understand than to be understood."?

God Bless

 

[noguru]

C. S. Lewis wrote this in his book, Miracles

The self-contradiction of the Naturalist

"Now it would clearly be preposterous to apply this rule to each particular thought as we come to it and yet not to apply it to all thoughts taken collectively, that is, to human reason as a whole. Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind I a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense.

But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord.' And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that.

The shortest and simplest form of this argument is that given by Professor J. B. S. Haldane in Possible Worlds (p. 209). He writes, 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' The trouble about atoms is not that they are material but that they are, presumably, irrational. Or even if they were rational they do not produce my beliefs by honestly arguing with me and proving their point but by compelling me to think in a certain way. I am still subject to brute force: my beliefs have irrational causes.

God is rational
atoms are irrational
man is rational
man comes from God :think:

--Dave

This is a metaphysical conclusion that cannot be ascertained from empiricism. Since I do agree with it as metaphysical philosophy, I do not take issue with it on that level. This however, is a conclusion that is superfluous in regard to the material sciences.

 

[noguru]

C. S. Lewis wrote this in his book, Miracles

The self-contradiction of the Naturalist

"Now it would clearly be preposterous to apply this rule to each particular thought as we come to it and yet not to apply it to all thoughts taken collectively, that is, to human reason as a whole. Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind I a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense.

But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord.' And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that.

The shortest and simplest form of this argument is that given by Professor J. B. S. Haldane in Possible Worlds (p. 209). He writes, 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' The trouble about atoms is not that they are material but that they are, presumably, irrational. Or even if they were rational they do not produce my beliefs by honestly arguing with me and proving their point but by compelling me to think in a certain way. I am still subject to brute force: my beliefs have irrational causes.

God is rational
atoms are irrational
man is rational
man comes from God :think:

--Dave

So by your definition anyone who is rational is of God, and anyone who is not rational is not of God?

Do you realize that our neurology both the hardwiring, softwiring and the chemical messangers (neurotransmitters) have great influence on our behavior and whether behavior can be considered rational or not? So far noone has isolated any "supernatural" force that is responsible for human attitudes or behaviors. Did you know that every attitude and behavior that has been researched has been traced back to a physical part (nerve cell, chemical, and/or electrical impulse) of our neurology?

 

[Mr Jack]

Take the multiple-choice test for BS Evolutionism!

Question 1: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of biological traits across taxa
b. Shared ancestry of animal species
c. Survival of the fittest
d. Origin of life
e. Evolution of medicine

Question 2: Which of the following is/are unrelated?
(Choose all that apply)
a. Similarity of brain function across taxa
b. Comparative neurology
c. Survival benefits of sentient animals
d. Origin of sentience
e. Evolution of car design

If you answered "d" and "e" to both questions, you're a BS Evolutionist. If you chose only "e" to both questions, then you're NOT a BS Evolutionist.

Frankly, Hilston, your choice of 'BS Evolutionist' should be beneath you.

Your first question is missing the point. Of course I think that origin of life occured by naturalistic means sometime around 3.5-4 bya. But it is not something that can be explained by evolutionary theory. The problem here is that you are treating evolution as if it were equivalent to creation as an explanation - it isn't. Evolution strives to explain things which creation doesn't, and doesn't explain things which creation tries to. A complete history of life on earth does, of course, require an explanation of how life came into existence in the first place but this explaination is not, and cannot be, evolution. At the moment, we don't have a coherant, well-understood or empirically justified explanation for the origin of life but this is not a criticism of evolution.

As to your second question, I'm baffled that any evolutionist would not consider the origin of sentience to be part of evolutionary theory. The only similarity here is that, just as with the origin of life, we don't have a clear theory for how or why sentience emerged - hardly surprising given how little idea we have about how sentience actually occurs anyway.

 

[aharvey]

This debate has been the worst one yet..

Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo...

How or by what mechanism that has been demonstrated, does evolution produce a cat from a dog or a alligator from a fish.

Evolution can't give an example, all it can to is conjecture about how but no science. no documented cases thus it don't pass the muster. And if they say that it accures to slowly to see then it fails on the non-falseafiable clause of the definition of what science is.

So it is not science but fantasy.. a nice one though

Sorry you've been disappointed by this debate (as have I!), but please don't lose sight of the fact that it was Hilston's resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence that led us in this direction. That is, the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there, not because evolutionary science is short on mechanisms (interesting that you want mechanistic explanations, though; can you tell me the mechanisms by which God created a cat, a dog, an alligator, or a fish?)

 

[Metalking]

Got a cite for this? I need a comedy for this evening

There are many sites, enjoy : .. http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html

 

[Metalking]

Well carbon 14 dating is limited to 50,000 years old or less. It is no suprise that the results are not accurate. Did the people who sumbitted the fossils give the labratory an accurate account of which level of strata each fossil came from? It sounds like they were trying to decieve the labratory and the rest of us.

I know they were faced with skeptics and took steps to avoid beibg called frauds, they actually caught labs changing results after they learned where the dig was, but I'll let you read
the events. http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html.. there are more sites.

 

[aharvey]

I know they were faced with skeptics and took steps to avoid beibg called frauds, they actually caught labs changing results after they learned where the dig was, but I'll let you read
the events. http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html.. there are more sites.

The best thing about the world wide web is that people can put anything there, limited only by their imagination and resources, for anyone in the world to see.

The worst thing about the world wide web is that people can put anything there, limited only by their imagination and resources, for anyone in the world to see.

On the web, more so than anywhere else, you are bound to find confidently written support for your preconceptions, whatever they may be. To borrow from a recent book title, do not confuse "never in doubt" with "right"!

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to noguru, Mr. Jack and aharvey

Combined reply to noguru, Mr. Jack and aharvey

Hi noguru,

I asked if you agreed with the Bible when it says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. You replied:

Do you mean these quotes; [snipped quotes] ... I think the ovreall thrust of these quotes is to equate "fear of the Lord" with respect for humility and the wisdom that is gained from humility.

Are you saying that actual "fear (reverence) for the Lord" is not in view, but rather is a metaphor for respecting a state of mind?

Notice how knowledge is used. Notice how humility, wisdom and understanding are used. Knowledge is not wisdom. Knowledge is not understanding. The knowledge that is gained from the wisdom of humility is understanding.

No one is conflating knowledge and wisdom. Do you believe that justified knowledge can be gained apart from reverence for Christ?

You wrote earlier:

Yes, Hilston's argument from Descarte's tongue;

"I believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I can use logic."

OR

"I do not believe in a literal inerrant Bible, therefore I cannot use logic."

Perhaps my memory is failing me, but as far as I recall, never have I made any such arguments. I don't agree with them. Can you tell me why you wrote this?

Mr Jack

Hi Mr. Jack,

You write:

Frankly, Hilston, your choice of 'BS Evolutionist' should be beneath you.

You just don't know me well enough yet. Give me time. You'll see low I'm capable of stooping.

Your first question is missing the point.

I didn't make it up, Mr. Jack. Someone else made the comparision of confusing the evolution of medicine with Evolutionary biology. All I did was formulate it as a multiple choice question.

Of course I think that origin of life occured by naturalistic means sometime around 3.5-4 bya. But it is not something that can be explained by evolutionary theory.

Saga, Dawkins, Huxley and Dobzhansky all disagree with you.

The problem here is that you are treating evolution as if it were equivalent to creation as an explanation - it isn't.

On the contrary, I don't think there is anything that can stand up to the Creatonist explanation at all.

Evolution strives to explain things which creation doesn't, and doesn't explain things which creation tries to.

There is no "try." Evolution strives to explains things that are not problems. Evolution invented a problem in order to give man an "out" for having to answer to an intrusive Deity.

A complete history of life on earth does, of course, require an explanation of how life came into existence in the first place but this explaination is not, and cannot be, evolution.

If you're sticking to the evolution (lower case "e") v. Evolution (upper case "E") distinction, I agree with you. But that's not was Sagan et al were talking about.

At the moment, we don't have a coherant, well-understood or empirically justified explanation for the origin of life but this is not a criticism of evolution.

No, but it is a criticism of Evolution (u.c. "E").

Thanks for your post, Mr. Jack. It's good to hear from you.

aharvey

Hi aharvey,

You write:

Sorry you've been disappointed by this debate (as have I!), but please don't lose sight of the fact that it was Hilston's resolute refusal to discuss actual evidence that led us in this direction. ...

Did you read the debate, aharvey? Do you understand the problem with discussing evidence? If we both looked at evidence, we would agree right up until a conflicting assumption emerged. At precisely that point, we would be back to arguing worldviews. Pick an example; what evidence would you like to have seen discussed?

That is, the questions you ask haven't been discussed in this debate because Hilston won't go there ...

It's not that I won't go there. It's irrelevant. I don't disagree regarding the mechanism of evolution. I disagree about Evolution as an accounting for the diversity of life as we know it. You say you were disappointed in the debate. I'm not convinced you've read it , based on your comments here.

Air-cushion finish,
Jim

 

[noguru]

I know they were faced with skeptics and took steps to avoid beibg called frauds, they actually caught labs changing results after they learned where the dig was, but I'll let you read
the events. http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html.. there are more sites.

This sounds like an exageration of documented archeological discoveries from the Yucatan discussed in "They Were Here Before Columbus" by Ivan Van Sertima. In his book he builds a case that people of nubian descent landed in the new world before columbus.

Here

I read his book about 14 years ago, and I don't remember Sertima claiming that any of the figures he found supported the notion from the site you posted. I think you've been had.

 

[aharvey]

Hi aharvey,

Did you read the debate, aharvey? Do you understand the problem with discussing evidence? If we both looked at evidence, we would agree right up until a conflicting assumption emerged. At precisely that point, we would be back to arguing worldviews. Pick an example; what evidence would you like to have seen discussed?

It's not that I won't go there. It's irrelevant. I don't disagree regarding the mechanism of evolution. I disagree about Evolution as an accounting for the diversity of life as we know it. You say you were disappointed in the debate. I'm not convinced you've read it , based on your comments here.

Air-cushion finish,
Jim

Did you read the post to which I was responding? Just Tom was complaining about a specific aspect of the debate that was missing. I wanted to make sure he knew why that aspect was missing.

And believe me, I have been following, as best as anyone could, your tens of thousands of style-rich, content-lite words. And I've made my objections quite clear in previous posts here. I'm curious that of my recent posts (e.g.,444 and 445), this is the one to which you choose to respond! I'm rather more interested in your answers to questions I've asked you directly.

Allow me to fix one glitch in post 445:

Originally Posted by Hilston

My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven.

Me: Okay, let’s see if you are willing to provide this chain of logic! But I do need to point out that “God’s existence” is not the presupposition that drives your arguments. You have already, and repeatedly, asserted that presupposing God is not good enough. Normally, though not always, you use the phrase “God of the Bible,” not just “God.” Your presupposition is a literal and inerrant Bible, from which you conclude God exists.

But who am I to say what your presuppositions are?

Well, here’s an interesting assignment. Try to make your case starting with the presupposition of “God’s existence,” but without presuppositioning that the Bible is literal and inerrant. Now try to make your case starting with the presupposition that the Bible is literal and inerrant, but without presupposing that God exists.

 

[Nineveh]

Awsome debate Hilston! Thank you for your invested time and energy

 

[SUTG]

SUTG wrote: I can say "If you type a response to this post, you will have proved that the TAG is a worthless argument."

It's an empty assertion, SUTG.

So if the italicized quote I wrote above is true, then the TAG is refuted. It can be symbolized as follows:

HR = Hilston Responds
TR = TAG refuted

HR->TR (If Hilston responds, the TAG is refuted)
HR (Hilston responded)
.: TR therefore, TAG is refuted

A great syllogism. You need to accept the major premise, and agree that you did in fact respond, and the conclusion falls out nicely by deduction. Does this refute the TAG? Of course not! At this point the major premise is as you correctly claimed, an empty assertion. The real work would be for me to show that the major premise is true. Once that is accepted, of course the conclusion is true. Everything interesting about the argument is contained in the major premise. As a matter of fact, if I could show the major premise to be true, I wouldn't even have to bother with the rest of the argument.

The existence of the God of the Bible is proven in that, without Him, you can't prove anything.

God is not the conclusion. God is the major premise.

In the first quote, you are speaking of the God of the Bible as being proven. Saying that something is proven is the same as saying that it is the conclusion of a sound argument. That is what it means to be proven. In the second quote you refer to the God of the Bible as the major premise. Do you not think that this is a problem?

I am assuming you meant that the proposition "God exists" is the major premise. Please provide the minor premise and conclusion. If you want to argue that experience is intelligible, and God is the only major premise that can support that conclusion, then go ahead - but focus your efforts on the "God is the only major premise that can support that conclusion" part. Otherwise your proof looks alot like the proof I posted above. Once you assert a wild premise, you can prove anything.

Of course it is true that nothing is intelligible unless Christian Theism is true, provided that the attributes and character of the Christian God can uniquely account for intelligibility. Just as of course it is true that the TAG is refuted, provided that the fact that you responded to my post entails the TAG's refutation. Now, if you roll up your sleeves and get to work on showing that attributes and character of the Christian God can uniquely account for intelligibility, your argument will fall into place rather nicely. I'll be busy working on my proof that your responding refutes the TAG.

 

[Metalking]

This sounds like an exageration of documented archeological discoveries from the Yucatan discussed in "They Were Here Before Columbus" by Ivan Van Sertima. In his book he builds a case that people of nubian descent landed in the new world before columbus.

Here

I read his book about 14 years ago, and I don't remember Sertima claiming that any of the figures he found supported the notion from the site you posted. I think you've been had.

Different events...This is about the discoveries of Waldemar Julsrud and further research on those artifacts.