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 (477 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:
Deleted User
Deleted User

Sorry, but to claim that 1+1= whatever comes up on the random meter unless a miracle happens is neither logical nor reasonable nor corresponds to any reality. You may want to claim that logic and reason and reality cannot exist without God, but to my ear this argument comes across as intellectual flailing.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Okay. It's pretty clear that I am missing what it is that Jason, Ray and the various linked articles find compelling. I suspect it is here:
Quote:
 
logic and reason and reality cannot exist without God
as the foundational commitment. The picture of God as like the platinum bar at the Smithsonian which declares to the without which they are clueless world what a true foot is - only bigger and about everything - does not really ring my chimes.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastoral Musings
Member Avatar
Fundy
xulon
Dec 19 2011, 09:20 AM
Okay. It's pretty clear that I am missing what it is that Jason, Ray and the various linked articles find compelling. I suspect it is here:
Quote:
 
logic and reason and reality cannot exist without God
as the foundational commitment. The picture of God as like the platinum bar at the Smithsonian which declares to the without which they are clueless world what a true foot is - only bigger and about everything - does not really ring my chimes.
Xulon,
"Does not ring my chimes" is an arbitrary statement. The only standard of the truthfulness of our argument then becomes your chimes.
We are saying that God is (not should be, but is) the standard of truth.
Either God is the basis of our epistemology, or we seek to declare human reason to be autonomous.
The problem with human reason is found in Romans 1:18-21.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Okay Jason. Thank you for your patience.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pastoral Musings
Member Avatar
Fundy
xulon
Dec 19 2011, 09:38 AM
Okay Jason. Thank you for your patience.
Xulon,
You're welcome. I hope it helps. I think discussion is supposed to help us all. I certainly gain from the discussions I enter into, or the ones I read. You're an intelligent guy, and definitely serve to sharpen me through discussion.
Presuppositional apologetics' strong point is this particular argument, along with one regarding morals having their foundation in God.
I fear that presuppositionalism gets a bad rap due to Rushdooney, but I think there are others who make the same argument. Perhaps "transcendental" may be a better term.
In either case, William Lane Craig in 5 Views on Apologetics spoke the transcendental argument as a very good argument; though I must add the caveat that he felt that Frame did not do a good job establishing his argument as he wrote his piece for that particular book.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Apologetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply