Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism

[BillyBob]

Do you think Jesus was an evolutionist? He seemed to put a lot of stock in the Old Testament. The fact that some Christians are confused on evolution doesn't help or hurt the point Clete is making.

This is the point where I bow out of theological debates and plead the 14th. [Romans 14]

Good day, Gentlemen. :e4e:

 

[Nineveh]

Except for, how about 6 literal days of creation 6000 +/- years ago?
Or a world wide flood several thousand years ago.
Clearly the science contradicts those.

That's just your eisegesis of the physical evidence

 

[SUTG]

It is if you are employing it in an attempt to validate the use of logic. It's question begging at its finest and is therefore irrational.

It depends, which is why I mention Russell. You can validate certain systems of logic with other systems of logic.

If you are talking about validating logic "in general" this will always lead to circularity since the very concept of validity is a logical concept. Why would you ask someone to validate logic? Raising the question of whether or not something is valid presupposes logic, i.e. the question only makes sense if you've already accepted logic.

Please tell me you haven't been reading Bahnsen and Van Till.

 

[Clete]

It depends, which is why I mention Russell. You can validate certain systems of logic with other systems of logic.

If you are talking about validating logic "in general" this will always lead to circularity since the very concept of validity is a logical concept. Why would you ask someone to validate logic?

I would ask the question because they claim that all truth can be validated via logic which is itself a truth claim which cannot be so validated. It demonstrates the incoherence of their worldview.

Raising the question of whether or not something is valid presupposes logic, i.e. the question only makes sense if you've already accepted logic.

Actually it is not logic that I presuppose, that would be illogical and therefore incoherent. It is the existence of an intelligent, personal, relational, logical, holy, righteous, triune God that I presuppose. The existence and validity of logic is thereby explained and upheld in a completely coherent manner.

Please tell me you haven't been reading Bahnsen and Van Till.

I detect a touch of ad hominem in this comment but to answer the question, everything I know about the presuppositional apologetic argument I learned from Jim Hilston. (Well, almost everything ) Van Till and Bahnsen were by no means the only two people that put forward a presuppositional apologetic by the way.

But don't worry. I suck at it compared to Jim. BR IX is unlikely to resemble this thread in any way whatsoever. In fact, I doubt that Jim would even think that I did more than barely an adequate job of making the argument, and he would for sure be able to point out countless opportunities that I could have taken advantage of that I never saw. All I can say for Stratnard is that he'd better be prepared for an argument unlike anything he's ever seen or heard of before. I can hardly wait.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[mighty_duck]

What I said was correct the way I said it. Without the existence of God being the basis of one's knowledge one cannot know anything at all. If you deny that God exists you couldn't prove to me or even to yourself that you are not some fancy bit of holographic computer programming which is running autonomously inside a memory cube which is sitting on Commander Data's desk. For all you know none of this is real and you cannot prove that it is.

First, we'll have to get some definitions down. The important one is knowledge.
If you wish to call what I have termed "Absolute knowledge" as simply "knowledge", then fine. I will use the term "Relative Knowledge". As long as we understand each other.
Science only deals with relative knowledge, and makes no claim to absolute knowledge. Everything science has ever said about the world, is only as true as it's basic axioms (which aren't known to be true)
Is relative knowledge worthless? of course not, as it has done a great job describing our world to us.

That is not so. It is not a theory that the Earth circles the Sun, that is as much a scientific fact as anything could be and all such scientific facts do not and never have contradicted the Bible.

Scientific fact is just a fancy way of saying a particular theory is very well supported. Just like nutoneon physics were considered facts. Does that mean that scientifc facts are meaningless? Of course not, it is still a very powerful statement. Evolution is also a scientific fact, which I'm sure will be discussed in detailed during BR IV.

Science is a terrific way to get to the truth, just not by itself. Science literally borrows from the Christian worldview every time it utilizes any form of logic whatsoever.

Since I have explained that sciencedoes not deal with your definition of knowledge, and the validity of logic is an axiom, it makes no use of Christianity. It would be just as valid whether God exists or not.

But that's just the point. You can't verify what reality even is.

Now to deal with your claim that what we perceive can really just be a computer program, halucination, etc. You are right. I don't know that reality is real. But in practice, this is undeniable. It is an assumption made by every living creature with an intact mind. If anyone denies it, I will be happy to come over and hit them over the head with a self-denied bat. Or invite them to jump off a cliff, since logic isn't real, and therefore UP = DOWN.
Since we all agree on these axioms, then this is just philosophical gymnastics.

 

[Clete]

First, we'll have to get some definitions down. The important one is knowledge.
If you wish to call what I have termed "Absolute knowledge" as simply "knowledge", then fine. I will use the term "Relative Knowledge". As long as we understand each other.
Science only deals with relative knowledge, and makes no claim to absolute knowledge. Everything science has ever said about the world, is only as true as it's basic axioms (which aren't known to be true)
Is relative knowledge worthless? of course not, as it has done a great job describing our world to us.

Are you absolutely sure this is right? :think:

Scientific fact is just a fancy way of saying a particular theory is very well supported. Just like nutoneon physics were considered facts. Does that mean that scientifc facts are meaningless? Of course not, it is still a very powerful statement. Evolution is also a scientific fact, which I'm sure will be discussed in detailed during BR IV.

You heard it here first folks! There are no scientific facts one of which is Evolution! :hammer:

You are right. I don't know that reality is real.

Thank you for conceding the debate!

:Clete: :first:

Someone should archive this thread. I don't think I've ever won a debate so quickly and completely before in my life! Can you say slam dunk?!

If Statnard goes down this easily BR IX is going to be real yawner! :yawn:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[avatar382]

And so you presuppose the validity of logic. You believe logic is valid without proof and in effect, by faith. Do you not?


That particular axiom, as you call it, is known in philosophy as the law of identity or at least it is derived from it. It is one of the three laws of logic and thus it follows that it is a law of mathematics as well because as I mentioned earlier mathematics is simply a form of logic. So the point here is that your simply attempting to validate logic by describing what logic is but that doesn't help us determine whether logic is valid because what one is really asking is whether or not these axioms, or what I would call the three laws of logic, are valid and true. A question that you are completely incapable of answering in any rational manner.


Holy cow! :noway:
You get positive rep for this one! I don't recall anyone that wasn't a Christian ever being intellectually honest enough to come right out and say this! It's absolutely unbelievable!
You're absolutely correct! You have nowhere to start. The problem is a lot worse than you realize though because with this admission you've just thrown the baby out with the bath water. You don't realize it but you've just admitted that knowledge is impossible unless you assume without cause or reason that logic is valid. Logic is literally your god which you believe in by faith and faith alone. By your own admission you cannot verify by any rational means that ANYTHING is true.


It isn't a tautology it is one of the laws of logic. Let me just quote what those three laws are so that we all know what we're talking about here.

Here is a brief statement of each.

1. The law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true; or, every proposition implies itself: A implies A.

2. The law of excluded middle states that everything must either be or not be; or, everything is A or not-A.

3. The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A.

These laws are irrefutable and are the basis of necessary inference. Without them necessary inference vanishes and any attempt to refute them, makes use of them. What's more, they are grounded in the 'Logos of God', the source and determiner of all truth. Moreover, the laws stand together as a trinity; to fault one, is to fault all, and to uphold one, upholds the others. Together, these laws establish and clarify the meaning of necessary inference for logic and all intelligible discourse.source

And it is this basis for the three laws of logic that you and other non-theists miss it. You have no means by which to establish or even explain the existence of logic whatsoever. You insist on living your life based on reason and logic and all the while you are living by truly blind faith and as a result cannot truly know anything at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

So we've established that logic is axiomatic and are to be taken as self-evident, held as true without proof.

I absolutely agree that inference, and hence knowledge is not possible without accepting logic as self-evident.

It seems the difference between your worldview and mine is that you attribute the existence of logic to a very specific source, where my position is that I admit ignorance to where logic comes from, to the point where I believe that truly understanding it may be beyond the capacity of human comprehension.

See, from my point of view, logic just IS. I disagree that this makes logic my "faith", because to describe what we have discussed so far as "faith" is to misuse the commonly understood meaning of the word.

I'll attempt to explain this by example: as human beings, we are utterly dependant on our senses to observe our surroundings. We have no choice but to trust, without proof, that what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell, along with context as interpreted by our brain, reflect reality. In this way, our senses are axiomatic. Does this mean that we must have "faith" in our senses? I don't think so. Our senses are tools that we rely upon to interact with the world. I view logic as a "sixth sense", in that it is a tool that we have no choice but to rely on if we are to meaningfully interact with our surroundings.

Are you telling me that every self-evident (read: obvious) truth we deal with every day of our lives is categorized as "faith?" The commonly accepted definition of the word "faith" is that it denotes belief in spite of an absence of proof. Applying the term to an axiom misses the point of an axiom - axioms are self-evident, they don't NEED proof. If something doesn't need proof, then it doesn't make sense to believe it in spite of a lack of proof.

And now comes the fun part for you. How is it that you can claim that the laws of logic must necessarily come from a "Christian worldview"? You claim that they are grounded in the "Logos of God", which you say is "the source and determiner of all truth". What is your justification for this? Why is it not possible for logic to merely be part of nature?

 

[Clete]

Clete,

So we've established that logic is axiomatic and are to be taken as self-evident, held as true without proof.

I absolutely agree that inference, and hence knowledge is not possible without accepting logic as self-evident.

It seems the difference between your worldview and mine is that you attribute the existence of logic to a very specific source, where my position is that I admit ignorance to where logic comes from, to the point where I believe that truly understanding it may be beyond the capacity of human comprehension.

See, from my point of view, logic just IS. I disagree that this makes logic my "faith", because to describe what we have discussed so far as "faith" is to misuse the commonly understood meaning of the word.

I'll attempt to explain this by example: as human beings, we are utterly dependant on our senses to observe our surroundings. We have no choice but to trust, without proof, that what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell, along with context as interpreted by our brain, reflect reality. In this way, our senses are axiomatic. Does this mean that we must have "faith" in our senses? I don't think so. Our senses are tools that we rely upon to interact with the world. I view logic as a "sixth sense", in that it is a tool that we have no choice but to rely on if we are to meaningfully interact with our surroundings.

Are you telling me that every self-evident (read: obvious) truth we deal with every day of our lives is categorized as "faith?" The commonly accepted definition of the word "faith" is that it denotes belief in spite of an absence of proof. Applying the term to an axiom misses the point of an axiom - axioms are self-evident, they don't NEED proof. If something doesn't need proof, then it doesn't make sense to believe it in spite of a lack of proof.

It does need proof in a worldview where truth must be verified by some objective neutral means which for every non-theist (atheists and agnostics) I've ever heard of is logic and reason. The most common objection raised by evolutionary nontheists against the belief in God is a lack of any ability whatsoever to verify His existence, which is now the very problem you are faced with concerning your own ability to think.

And now comes the fun part for you. How is it that you can claim that the laws of logic must necessarily come from a "Christian worldview"? You claim that they are grounded in the "Logos of God", which you say is "the source and determiner of all truth". What is your justification for this? Why is it not possible for logic to merely be part of nature?

Logic is part of nature! That's why science works. You ask the wrong question. The question is where does nature come from and why is logic an aspect of it. A question which you have no ability to even begin to formulate an answer to but that I can answer so easily that one wonders why such a question would ever need be asked. God created the universe and everything in it including the people in it who's invisible attributes include among other things, personality, the ability to reason logically, and a moral conscience, all because they were created in the image and likeness of the very God who made them.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[avatar382]

It does need proof in a worldview where truth must be verified by some objective neutral means which for every non-theist (atheists and agnostics) I've ever heard of is logic and reason. The most common objection raised by evolutionary nontheists against the belief in God is a lack of any ability whatsoever to verify His existence, which is now the very problem you are faced with concerning your own ability to think.

What is your point here? I don't see how it's possible to verify logical axioms. They are self-evident. They cannot be "verified", and as you said, most certainly cannot be refuted. This is why they are taken as true without proof or verification.

Logic is part of nature! That's why science works. You ask the wrong question. The question is where does nature come from and why is logic an aspect of it. A question which you have no ability to even begin to formulate an answer to but that I can answer so easily that one wonders why such a question would ever need be asked. God created the universe and everything in it including the people in it who's invisible attributes include among other things, personality, the ability to reason logically, and a moral conscience, all because they were created in the image and likeness of the very God who made them.

If the question is "The question is where does nature come from and why is logic an aspect of it", then my answer is simply:

"I don't know, and I think the answer is beyond human comprehension at this time."

My answer is justified by the fact that there is no known naturalistic explanation as to the origin of nature and the universe as we observe it. What we have are very fuzzy shots in the dark. i.e., Big Bang.

Your answer is:

"Goddidit." (along with a whole lot of theology about a man-god killed on a cross to pay for "sins" etc, etc, ad infinitum)

Why should I accept your answer? Just because you have an answer, even one that you can "easily offer," as you say, doesn't mean your answer is right.

Your answer introduces the supernatural, something we, as natural beings cannot observe or interact with in any way except in our imaginations. This is the great difference between science and religion - science is limited strictly to the natural, religion ventures out into the supernatural. As I said in my first post, they are diameterically opposed for this reason.

Please note that I have not conceeded in any way that the supernatural exists. Why isn't it possible that the phenomena mankind and science cannot explain actually has a naturalistic explaination, but that explanation is outside of the capacity for human beings to understand?

What do I mean by this? Consider the branch of calculus in mathematics. We can understand it, but dogs and cats cannot. They are not capable of it. Isn't it likely that just as a dog can never understand calculus, there are concepts in nature that we as humans cannot ever understand as well? And what of mankinds' tendency to explain what is at the present unexplainable by introducing supernatural explanations, only to see these explainations fall away as natural discoveries are made? (God of the gaps)

Moreover, back to the main focus of this thread, how is it all of science is dependant of this worldview of yours, so that you can claim credit for all of the advances of the past 100 years?

 

[mighty_duck]

You heard it here first folks! There are no scientific facts one of which is Evolution! :hammer:
Thank you for conceding the debate!

Don't go congratulating yourself just yet tiger. All I have conceded is that no knowledge is absolute. (you can insert any piece of knowledge here and pat yourself on the back- evolution, reality, non-existence of god, etc.) That may be difficult for you to grasp, but its a much more honest position.

Not having absolute (certain) knowledge by no means implies that we have no knowledge, just that it is relative to other pieces of knowledge that we have, our axioms, and the certainty level we have for all the above.

Our relative knowledge is enough to figure out how to put a man on the moon, build the internet etc. It is enough for us to make all the decisions we make every day. Why do you think that knowledge that isnt absolute is equal to no knowledge at all??

Oh and if you're talking about the BR IV debate, the topic is "Is evolution Science", which given my definition of science, it surely is. The debate is not "can we be absolutely certain evolution is correct". Point. Set. Match. Thank you very much.

 

[Clete]

Don't go congratulating yourself just yet tiger. All I have conceded is that no knowledge is absolute. (you can insert any piece of knowledge here and pat yourself on the back- evolution, reality, non-existence of god, etc.) That may be difficult for you to grasp, but its a much more honest position.

Okay, the piece of knowledge I wish to insert is the one that states that, "no knowledge is absolute."

Not having absolute (certain) knowledge by no means implies that we have no knowledge, just that it is relative to other pieces of knowledge that we have, our axioms, and the certainty level we have for all the above.

Are you absolutely sure that this is true? I know this is a redundant question but it's the only one that makes sense to ask. The point is that by your own admission, you have to answer "no". In which case the debate it over and you lost.

Our relative knowledge is enough to figure out how to put a man on the moon, build the internet etc. It is enough for us to make all the decisions we make every day.

You don't even know for certain nor are you able to prove absolutely (by your own admission) that we sent people to the moon, that the internet exists, or that you exist in order to make decisions about whether to debate people on said internet.

Why do you think that knowledge that isnt absolute is equal to no knowledge at all??

Because of the definition of the word 'knowledge', first of all. Your version of knowledge amounts basically to wishful thinking and really not even that. By your worldview "cogito ergo sum" (I think; therefore I am) doesn’t even apply because you don't even know for sure that you're really thinking or that you exist either one!

Oh and if you're talking about the BR IV debate, the topic is "Is evolution Science", which given my definition of science, it surely is. The debate is not "can we be absolutely certain evolution is correct". Point. Set. Match. Thank you very much.

I know what the topic is, I'm the one who came up with the topic and the title. The topic here in this thread is related but definitely different, and the approach that Jim will take in the debate is likely to be similar in that he will argue from a presuppositional stance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[mighty_duck]

Okay, the piece of knowledge I wish to insert is the one that states that, "no knowledge is absolute."

Are you absolutely sure that this is true? I know this is a redundant question but it's the only one that makes sense to ask. The point is that by your own admission, you have to answer "no". In which case the debate it over and you lost.

Both of these argument amount to the same thing. Since Logic is our axiom, and we can't be absolutely certain that logic always works, we can't be absolutely certain that our logic works.

There are two issues.
1. Irrelavancy of absolute certainty.
2. Irrelavancy of rejection of our axioms.

1. Absolute certainty sure would be nice, but it's a luxury we don't have in this world about anything. And still, we do all right. We can make our decisions even without omniscience. To do that we have a little razor in our back pocket, which we use every waking second of every day. From the atheist to the pope, and even to Clete himself. It's a very useful razor indeed, cutting apart invisible leprecauns, olympus gods interfering, falling pianos and other distractions. It is a probalistic tool, and lacks the absolute certainty that Clete would love to have. But, again, IT WORKS!

2. Every sane person accepts my axioms, even Clete. A person who rejects the basic Axioms of reality and logic in a debate, is either a lunatic or a liar (as far as I'm concerned. He may of course be a prophet of Ra). If you want to end the debate right now, simply assert that reality isn't real, or that logic is wrong.That's different from saying they are not 100% certain. It's saying they are 0% certain.

Clete,

Now that I have explained my worldview, and that absolute certainty is not required, please answer this:

1. Why do you think absolute certainty is required?
2. Do you have absolute certainty regarding ANYTHING? If so please let us know what, and how you achieved this certainty, And a follow up question: do you have absolute certainty regarding EVERYTHING? If not, then how do you make descisions in the face of uncertainty?

 

[SUTG]

Actually it is not logic that I presuppose, that would be illogical and therefore incoherent. It is the existence of an intelligent, personal, relational, logical, holy, righteous, triune God that I presuppose. The existence and validity of logic is thereby explained and upheld in a completely coherent manner.

You are presupposing logic, you are just including a bunch of other fanciful and unneccessary presuppositions.

Remember several posts ago when I mentioned this as one way out of the 'dilemna' you spoke of? Sure, you can posit the Christian Triune God as the 'grounding' or 'justification' of logic and morals, but this is just arbitrary assertion. There are an infinite number of other presuppositions that work just as well. Ergo, presuppositionalism is trivial.

 

[Balder]

I agree, SUTG. I had a long debate with one presuppositionalist here (Hilston) who maintains that there is only one coherent presupposition, and all others explode on their face when poked into. But I don't think that's the case, and that's not what happened when we debated.

 

[Clete]

You are presupposing logic, you are just including a bunch of other fanciful and unneccessary presuppositions.

NO SIR! I am not! Logic is an attribute of God and would not, could not, does not exist apart from Him. He is its source and its foundation. It is God that I presuppose not logic. Logic does not work apart from the existence of God, as I have demonstrated in this thread and thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
You are the one who presupposes logic not me and in so doing you construct for yourself an incoherent and unexplainable worldview which leads to the sort of conclusions that mighty duck has displayed where nothing can be known at all including the fact that nothing can be known. It's completely incoherent nonsense.

Remember several posts ago when I mentioned this as one way out of the 'dilemma' you spoke of? Sure, you can posit the Christian Triune God as the 'grounding' or 'justification' of logic and morals, but this is just arbitrary assertion. There are an infinite number of other presuppositions that work just as well. Ergo, Presuppositionalism is trivial.

No other justification is adequate. We are here talking about logic and reason, we could just as easily discuss personality or morality or any number of the several invisible attributes of God that cannot be explained in an non-theistic worldview and the further down the road you go, the closer you get to a God which resembles the Christian God. As I said a moment ago, it is rationally inescapable; the God of the Christian Bible is the One and only living and true God because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I agree, SUTG. I had a long debate with one presuppositionalist here (Hilston) who maintains that there is only one coherent presupposition, and all others explode on their face when poked into. But I don't think that's the case, and that's not what happened when we debated.

The only reason that's true is because you bogged the whole debate down in unitelligable jargon that no one but you could understand. It wasn't even a debate, you and Jim spent the whole time trying to establish a common vernacular which never happened. In short your worldview is incoherent even before you poke into it. No one but you and perhaps some obscure guru somewhere who has the secret decoder ring can even understand it!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Both of these argument amount to the same thing. Since Logic is our axiom, and we can't be absolutely certain that logic always works, we can't be absolutely certain that our logic works.

There are two issues.
1. Irrelevancy of absolute certainty.
2. Irrelevancy of rejection of our axioms.

1. Absolute certainty sure would be nice, but it's a luxury we don't have in this world about anything. And still, we do all right. We can make our decisions even without omniscience. To do that we have a little razor in our back pocket, which we use every waking second of every day. From the atheist to the pope, and even to Clete himself. It's a very useful razor indeed, cutting apart invisible leprechauns, Olympus gods interfering, falling pianos and other distractions. It is a probalistic tool, and lacks the absolute certainty that Clete would love to have. But, again, IT WORKS!

The statements "Absolute certainty…is a luxury we don't have in this world about anything.", and "IT WORKS", as well as most of everything in-between, are all absolute statements MD! You cannot know that absolute certainty is an unavailable luxury nor that logic works, by your own admission!

IT'S INCOHERENT, SELF CONTRADICTORY NONSENSE!

2. Every sane person accepts my axioms, even Clete. A person who rejects the basic Axioms of reality and logic in a debate, is either a lunatic or a liar (as far as I'm concerned. He may of course be a prophet of Ra). If you want to end the debate right now, simply assert that reality isn't real, or that logic is wrong. That's different from saying they are not 100% certain. It's saying they are 0% certain.

You are zero % certain! You don't even know for sure whether you exist in reality MD! How can you be at all certain of anything else?

Now that I have explained my worldview, and that absolute certainty is not required, please answer this:

1. Why do you think absolute certainty is required?
2. Do you have absolute certainty regarding ANYTHING? If so please let us know what, and how you achieved this certainty, And a follow up question: do you have absolute certainty regarding EVERYTHING? If not, then how do you make decisions in the face of uncertainty?

You must first demonstrate to me that you can know for sure that I even exist and that whatever answers I have for such questions (or the questions themselves for that mater) are not figments of the Jolly Green Giant's imagination. Until you can do that without defeating your own position (which of course you cannot do), you have no foundation upon which to justify your attempt to use logic to evaluate my worldview because you don't even know for sure that logic exists.
You have lost this debate mighty duck, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You've thrown out the only tool you have by which to even know that this debate is really going on or that logic itself even exists. I don't know how you think you have any grounds upon which to proceed further.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

It wasn't even a debate, you and Jim spent the whole time trying to establish a common vernacular which never happened. In short your worldview is incoherent even before you poke into it. No one but you and perhaps some obscure guru somewhere who has the secret decoder ring can even understand it!

The early part of the debate did get bogged down in terminology, but that does not characterize the whole discussion. In arguing that my worldview is incoherent because it was hard to establish a common vernacular, however, you are not making a logical point but rather indulging in a tactic common to presuppositionalist argumentation (that I've seen so far): declaring something incoherent as a kind of name calling, rather than actually demonstrating the incoherence of an alternative view by revealing its inconsistencies and inadequacies. The fact that there may exist ways of looking at the world that are sufficiently different from your own, that it takes concerted effort to grasp them, is evidence primarily of the limitations of presuppositions, not the strength of your particular presuppositional model. Because holding tightly to presuppositions can lead to blindness and an inability to grasp alternative perspectives, which may indeed be as robust and coherent as the particular set you hold.

It would be another thread, but I am still open to responding to the challenge: tell me anything about the nature of the world that you think a non-Christian worldview is incapable of explaining with at least as much coherence as your own, and I will be happy to respond (from the perspective of my worldview, but with an openness also to being proved wrong).

Peace,
Balder

 

[Clete]

The early part of the debate did get bogged down in terminology, but that does not characterize the whole discussion. In arguing that my worldview is incoherent because it was hard to establish a common vernacular, however, you are not making a logical point but rather indulging in a tactic common to presuppositionalist argumentation (that I've seen so far): declaring something incoherent as a kind of name calling, rather than actually demonstrating the incoherence of an alternative view by revealing its inconsistencies and inadequacies. The fact that there may exist ways of looking at the world that are sufficiently different from your own, that it takes concerted effort to grasp them, is evidence primarily of the limitations of presuppositions, not the strength of your particular presuppositional model. Because holding tightly to presuppositions can lead to blindness and an inability to grasp alternative perspectives, which may indeed be as robust and coherent as the particular set you hold.

It would be another thread, but I am still open to responding to the challenge: tell me anything about the nature of the world that you think a non-Christian worldview is incapable of explaining with at least as much coherence as your own, and I will be happy to respond (from the perspective of my worldview, but with an openness also to being proved wrong).

Peace,
Balder

No one would be more qualified to do such a thing that I know of than Jim Hilston. I dare you to post a link to that debate.

 

[Balder]

No one would be more qualified to do such a thing that I know of than Jim Hilston. I dare you to post a link to that debate.

Here it is.



P.S. I just read over most of that debate. I might say some things differently, but overall I stand behind it and think that your use of the word "dare" is uncalled for. Nothing to be ashamed of there. I think I made Hilston work to defend his views as much as anyone on TOL has, and perhaps moreso than many.