Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Intelligible Argumentation?; or "irrational+incoherent=atheism?"
Topic Started: Dec 16 2011, 05:34 PM (479 Views)
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
Over here Jason tells us:
Quote:
 
...atheism is irrational and incoherent because it has no ultimate criteria by which to determine truth.


True statement? I think so. Do you?

Discuss.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
So, less what is said and more how it is said?

Well, then, what of my expansion of the argument (understanding that the expansion is a conclusion not a 'gotcha')?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastoral Musings
Member Avatar
Fundy
Not sure how I should respond to Xulon.
Let me just copy and paste from my blog post ( http://pastoralmusings.com/2011/11/presuppositions-and-inerrancy-redux/ )
"Where does knowledge come from? Is knowledge based upon certain nervous impulses and hormonal changes? Is knowledge simply the result of observation? If this is the case, knowledge for one person will certainly not be necessarily the knowledge that another thinks that he has. In fact, knowledge would be relative and thus be only opinion. On the other hand, if knowledge is something that can be held in common by humans, knowledge must have an absolute and objective source that determines the truth or falsity of a matter.

For there to be an absolute source and standard of knowledge and truth that source must possess all knowledge and truth. The Christian Theist understands this source of all knowledge and truth to be the God of the Bible.3

If God is the source and standard of all truth and all knowledge, then we have a standard by which we can measure all truth claims. If we do not have God as this source and standard of knowledge and truth, we descend into relativism and irrationality."

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I think the "without God knowledge is only opinion" is an issue. As is "If there is knowledge, it must have an absolute and objective source".

I assume you do not mean that knowledge that a rock is hard can only rise above the level of opinion if God exists. So what knowledge are you talking about? Why does there have to be "an absolute source and standard for knowledge"?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastoral Musings
Member Avatar
Fundy
Xulon,
If an absolute standard does not exist, then there is only relativism and we descend into irrationality. It is my idea against yours, and ours against the worlds. There is no arbiter of truth if there is no absolute standard of knowledge.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

So without God, 1+1=2 is only your opinion?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastoral Musings
Member Avatar
Fundy
xulon
Dec 18 2011, 08:52 PM
So without God, 1+1=2 is only your opinion?
Without God we cannot know whether or not 1+1=2 is correct or not, because there is no absolute source or standard of truth. There is nothing to determine what is true and what is not without God.
I think you would do well to read this by John Frame. I think it would answer some questions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Pastoral Musings
Dec 18 2011, 09:03 PM
xulon
Dec 18 2011, 08:52 PM
So without God, 1+1=2 is only your opinion?
Without God we cannot know whether or not 1+1=2 is correct or not, because there is no absolute source or standard of truth.
So what is being attempted is to turn 1+1=2 into Atheists' "then a miracle happened"?

Why can't an atheist pick up one pencil and then pick up one pencil and have two pencils?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastoral Musings
Member Avatar
Fundy
xulon
Dec 18 2011, 09:55 PM
Pastoral Musings
Dec 18 2011, 09:03 PM
xulon
Dec 18 2011, 08:52 PM
So without God, 1+1=2 is only your opinion?
Without God we cannot know whether or not 1+1=2 is correct or not, because there is no absolute source or standard of truth.
So what is being attempted is to turn 1+1=2 into Atheists' "then a miracle happened"?

Why can't an atheist pick up one pencil and then pick up one pencil and have two pencils?
Xulon,
I cannot make much sense of what you're saying. Perhaps it's me, but I can see no connection with this discussion and miracles.
This discussion is about epistemology having its roots in God, and in none other.
Have you ever read any Van Til or Frame? Have you ever read a transcendental argument regarding epistemology? Did you go to the link on Frame's site and read?
I'm thinking that you aren't grasping the issue, or else you are playing devil's advocate. The problem is that I cannot discern which.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Pastoral Musings
Dec 19 2011, 07:10 AM
I'm thinking that you aren't grasping the issue, or else you are playing devil's advocate. The problem is that I cannot discern which.
It may not be an either/or. ;)

I did read that article plus Ray has sent me to other ones. As I see it, the argument is to apply Colossians 1:17 to the convo And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17) and say that without God one cannot even trust that 1+1=2 is a valid concept (hence, for the Atheist 1+1=2 is a miraculous event, whether they like it or not). I cannot see that any of this follows. Logically it is a non sequitur. Anybody can have one item, get one more and the result is two items.

Further, the Christian, smarting over the Atheists' mocking of faith want to turn it around and say Atheists live by faith. While I agree that they do and that non-material realities break into their consciousnesses, I don't see that this argumentation leads there or that in this instance "1+1=2 is a leap of faith" has any value beyond "Oh! Snap!".
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastoral Musings
Member Avatar
Fundy
Xulon,
The question is how can you think that there is any ability to have any sort of rationality without God as the absolute standard of truth?
If there is no absolute standard of truth, why cannot I claim that 3 is the new 2, and thus you are wrong in declaring that 1+1=2?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Apologetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply