Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Response to Sloan from skepticdude

Expand Messages
  • TL
    ... Don t try to run out the back door. Science his discovered many things people didn t know about before. Just because your presuppositions get in the way,
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 27, 2005
      > TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the
      > first place
      > except in some people's fantasies.
      >
      > J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a
      > circumstantial ad-hominem. There *is* evidence for
      > the existence of bodiless beings; namely God.
      > However, what one accepts as evidence depends
      > entirely on their presuppositions.

      Don't try to run out the back door. Science his
      discovered many things people didn't know about
      before. Just because your presuppositions get in the
      way, does NOT mean good evidence cannot overwhelm them
      and force a change of mind.

      > Yours are natural
      > presuppositions, hence you can't (or won't) accept
      > the supernatural.

      Yes, this sounds like you realize how utterly weak the
      supernatural proofs are, so you mistakenly attack my
      presuppositions, as if they are of paramount
      importance. They are not. Show me good evidence and
      I will re-assess my presuppositions.

      > Presenting evidential arguments
      > to the non-Christian is pointless because it allows
      > the non-Christian to engage in their supposed
      > autonomous thinking which in turn will not and can
      > not accept God.

      Your own Van Tilian assumptions are "evidentially"
      false, as admitted so by almost ALL former skeptics
      who became Christians because of what they called
      "overwhelming evidence" in the apologetics books they
      write after their conversion....Remember Josh
      McDowell?

      > We don't answer the fool according
      > to his folly and become like him (reasoning that
      > rejects God), we answer the fool according to his
      > folly lest he become wise (show the futility of his
      > worldview). My starting point is the Bible, what is
      > yours?

      Really? You intend to show the futility of my world
      view? Did you suddenly discover that there are
      arguments which CAN break down my naturalistic
      presuppositions? I thought you just said a few
      seconds ago, quoting Romans 8 loosely, that the
      natural man will not and cannot accept the
      supernatural?

      > TL wrote: Because every bit of evidence apologists
      > have drummed
      > up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
      > miserably.
      >
      > J. Sloan: Has failed according to who? You? If
      > God didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this
      > discussion and believe it or not (you likely won't)
      > that *is* proof of God.

      The Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist, yet I've heard of
      Christians having profitable discussions with Hindus.

      The toothfairy doesn't exist either, but my parents
      had a profitable discussion with a certain kid when he
      was about 5 years old.

      You said you would show the futility of the
      naturalistic worldview (the one that I hold.)

      Please procede to do so. The only way you can do it
      is to show good "evidence" that non-supernatural
      explanations are either self-contradictory, or else
      cannot sufficiently explain known and verifiably true
      data on or in the cosmos.

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Jimmy Sloan
      ... TL wrote: Don t try to run out the back door. Science his discovered many things people didn t know about before. Just because your presuppositions get
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 27, 2005
        > TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the
        >first place
        > except in some people's fantasies.
        >
        >J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a
        >circumstantial ad-hominem. There *is* evidence for
        >the existence of bodiless beings; namely God.
        >However, what one accepts as evidence depends
        >entirely on their presuppositions.

        TL wrote: Don't try to run out the back door. Science his
        discovered many things people didn't know about
        before. Just because your presuppositions get in the
        way, does NOT mean good evidence cannot overwhelm them
        and force a change of mind.

        J. Sloan: I am not running out the back door TL, I was pointing out the
        nature of your ad-hominen attack. One which has essentially continued in
        your latest response. Saying things like, "...except in some people's
        fantasies", accusing people of running out the back door and claiming that I
        realize how "utterly weak" theistic proofs are, *is* attacking the character
        and intelligence of theists in general. You may choose to deny this, but it
        will speak well for you if you do. The point that I was making is that what
        one accepts as evidence depends entirely on their presuppositions. You have
        presuppositions (naturalistic) and so do I (supernatural).

        You are correct when you say that science has made discoveries that were not
        known before (and will likewise make new discoveries that we do not know
        now) and I am glad that you brought up science because it is an excellent
        place to examine our presuppositions. As mentioned, your presuppositions
        are naturalistic, so how is it that science is possible if all that exists
        is matter in motion? Science itself *presupposes* laws that govern how
        matter itself behaves, yet if atheism were true, laws of any kind should not
        exist because we live in a blind, purposeless universe which is the result
        of *time plus chance,* not laws that govern our universe. Where do Natures
        Laws come from? Why do they exist? Atheism cannot answer this; the only
        answer atheism can give is that there are "no laws of physics, that there is
        only matter." However, if this is true, then if there is no matter, then
        there are no properties *of anything.* Furthermore, this theory would
        undermine much our current understanding of physics, laws of nature, quantum
        theory (which postulates in part that you can get something from nothing.
        Which would be absurd because "properties" would not exist if matter did not
        exist), theories of the mind and consciousness, and can't answer why the
        laws themselves do not change even though matter itself is dynamic.

        The problem for you, as an atheist, is explaining how science is possible at
        all if atheism were true without begging the question. If I told you that:

        (i) The Bible says that God exists.
        (ii) The Bible is the Word of God.
        (iii) Therefore, God exists.

        You would likely point out that I am begging the question because one of
        premises assumes the truth of my conclusion. Begging the question would not
        be acceptable as a *rational justification* so how do you conduct science
        and induction without begging the question TL? Without begging the
        question, how do you know that the sun will rise tomorrow? How do you know
        that when you throw a ball up in the air tomorrow that it will fall back to
        the earth? You see, you must assume the uniformity of nature (without
        which, science would not be possible) and yet you, as an atheist, cannot
        with begging the question, which is not a rational justification for
        assuming the uniformity of nature.

        >Yours are natural
        >presuppositions, hence you can't (or won't) accept
        >the supernatural.

        TL wrote: Yes, this sounds like you realize how utterly weak the
        supernatural proofs are, so you mistakenly attack my
        presuppositions, as if they are of paramount
        importance. They are not. Show me good evidence and
        I will re-assess my presuppositions.

        J. Sloan: I have shown you good evidence TL, we are having this conversation
        which would not be possible if atheism were true. However, the nature and
        extent of your presuppositions will not allow you to accept rational
        evidence. You want to argue evidentially using your supposed autonomous
        reasoning which has already rejected the existence of God. Thus, I do not
        meet you on this "common ground" because it (common ground) does not exist.
        Our presuppositions are what determines everything that we will accept as
        rational, evidence, etc. and are of "paramount importance". As in the
        example I gave using science, I am not asking *what*evidence there is for
        science (we both agree that there are laws of science, that science is
        possible, etc.), I am asking, *what are the necessary preconditions* that
        make science possible at all. Atheism does not have the necessary
        preconditions, Christian Theism does.


        >Presenting evidential arguments
        >to the non-Christian is pointless because it allows
        >the non-Christian to engage in their supposed
        >autonomous thinking which in turn will not and can
        >not accept God.

        TL wrote: Your own Van Tilian assumptions are "evidentially"
        false, as admitted so by almost ALL former skeptics
        who became Christians because of what they called
        "overwhelming evidence" in the apologetics books they
        write after their conversion....Remember Josh
        McDowell?

        J. Sloan: What are my "Van Tilian assumptions" and why are they false?

        >We don't answer the fool according
        >to his folly and become like him (reasoning that
        >rejects God), we answer the fool according to his
        >folly lest he become wise (show the futility of his
        >worldview). My starting point is the Bible, what is
        >yours?

        TL wrote: Really? You intend to show the futility of my world
        view?

        J. Sloan: Yes, I do.

        TL wrote: Did you suddenly discover that there are
        arguments which CAN break down my naturalistic
        presuppositions? I thought you just said a few
        seconds ago, quoting Romans 8 loosely, that the
        natural man will not and cannot accept the
        supernatural?

        J. Sloan: That's correct, the natural man cannot and will not accept the
        supernatural (total depravity). That doesn't stop me from demonstrating the
        futility of your worldview however. I can't convince a dead man that he's
        dead, but I can put a stethoscope on his chest and objectively demonstrate
        that he is in fact dead. The atheist knows of the existence of God, they
        have simply suppressed the truth in unrighteousness.

        > TL wrote: Because every bit of evidence apologists
        >have drummed
        > up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
        > miserably.
        >
        > J. Sloan: Has failed according to who? You? If
        >God didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this
        >discussion and believe it or not (you likely won't)
        >that *is* proof of God.

        TL wrote: The Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist, yet I've heard of
        Christians having profitable discussions with Hindus.

        J. Sloan: Which is further proof that God exists.

        TL wrote: The toothfairy doesn't exist either, but my parents
        had a profitable discussion with a certain kid when he
        was about 5 years old.

        J. Sloan: Which again, is further proof that God exists. If God didn't
        exist, you would have had a conversation about the tooth-fairy.

        TL wrote: You said you would show the futility of the
        naturalistic worldview (the one that I hold.)

        Please procede to do so. The only way you can do it
        is to show good "evidence" that non-supernatural
        explanations are either self-contradictory, or else
        cannot sufficiently explain known and verifiably true
        data on or in the cosmos.

        J. Sloan: See our discussion on science, which would not be possible if
        atheism were true.

        ~ J. Sloan


        Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et
        nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
      • Don Malin
        Hey dude, I m coming back into the fray....I missed a lot of what has been going on...please summarize why Christians are wrong.....What is the discussion
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 28, 2005
          Hey dude,
           
          I'm coming back into the fray....I missed a lot of what has been going on...please summarize why Christians are wrong.....What is the discussion here?
           
          Don

          TL <skepticdude@...> wrote:
          >   TL wrote:: There is no evidence for them in the
          > first place
          >   except in some people's fantasies.
          >
          >   J. Sloan: This amounts to nothing more than a
          > circumstantial ad-hominem. There *is* evidence for
          > the existence of bodiless beings; namely God.
          > However, what one accepts as evidence depends
          > entirely on their presuppositions.

          Don't try to run out the back door.  Science his
          discovered many things people didn't know about
          before.  Just because your presuppositions get in the
          way, does NOT mean good evidence cannot overwhelm them
          and force a change of mind.

          > Yours are natural
          > presuppositions, hence you can't (or won't) accept
          > the supernatural.

          Yes, this sounds like you realize how utterly weak the
          supernatural proofs are, so you mistakenly attack my
          presuppositions, as if they are of paramount
          importance.  They are not.  Show me good evidence and
          I will re-assess my presuppositions.

          > Presenting evidential arguments
          > to the non-Christian is pointless because it allows
          > the non-Christian to engage in their supposed
          > autonomous thinking which in turn will not and can
          > not accept God.

          Your own Van Tilian assumptions are "evidentially"
          false, as admitted so by almost ALL former skeptics
          who became Christians because of what they called
          "overwhelming evidence" in the apologetics books they
          write after their conversion....Remember Josh
          McDowell?

          > We don't answer the fool according
          > to his folly and become like him (reasoning that
          > rejects God), we answer the fool according to his
          > folly lest he become wise (show the futility of his
          > worldview). My starting point is the Bible, what is
          > yours?

          Really?  You intend to show the futility of my world
          view?  Did you suddenly discover that there are
          arguments which CAN break down my naturalistic
          presuppositions?  I thought you just said a few
          seconds ago, quoting Romans 8 loosely, that the
          natural man will not and cannot accept the
          supernatural?

          >   TL wrote: Because every bit of evidence apologists
          > have drummed
          >   up to try to prove the spiritual realm, has failed
          >   miserably.
          >
          >   J. Sloan: Has failed according to who? You?  If
          > God didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this
          > discussion and believe it or not (you likely won't)
          > that *is* proof of God.

          The Hindu god Vishnu doesn't exist, yet I've heard of
          Christians having profitable discussions with Hindus.

          The toothfairy doesn't exist either, but my parents
          had a profitable discussion with a certain kid when he
          was about 5 years old.

          You said you would show the futility of the
          naturalistic worldview (the one that I hold.)

          Please procede to do so.  The only way you can do it
          is to show good "evidence" that non-supernatural
          explanations are either self-contradictory, or else
          cannot sufficiently explain known and verifiably true
          data on or in the cosmos.

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.