"What if you're wrong?" - Richard Dawkins

[rob19]

Actually you’re wrong again, as I have clearly demonstrated it’s a known fact that atheists cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility in a manner that is consistent with their atheism, Russell couldn’t, Hume couldn’t, and you certainly have demonstrated that you cannot either. So my syllogism is completely sound even given your definition above.

He easily accounts for every one of those things…

The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, that’ explains why they are immutable, immaterial, and universal, which is something you cannot account for.

God upholds His creation in a predictable manner, hence why we can use induction because the manner in which the universe is governed will be consistent in the past, present, and future. Again, as a naturalist, you cannot account for this axiom.

"P1 If knowledge is possible, then God exists"

^This isn't a factual premise. Period; That should be self-evident to anyone who knows what a fact is. I don't pretend to have all the answers concerning the origins of the cosmos, but just because you say that God does those things doesn't make it true. You cling to your ideas of God out of a human insecurity to need to have answers.

Are you familiar with say the Hindu concept of God? What makes the Christian version any more valid than the Hindu one? Or for that matter any of the thousands of different religion's concepts of God throughout history? Absolutely nothing, it's all a matter of "we said, they said". It's a matter of belief, not fact.

Why? You’re just trying to change the subject because your atheism is not philosophically defensible as you have demonstrated throughout this discussion.

I created this thread, the original premise was "What if you're wrong about Christianity?". Pointing out how ludicrous it is that Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old falls completely under that umbrella. You're just afraid to admit that you think the Earth is 6000 years old because even you deep down know it's ridiculous.

[Statler Waldorf]

^This isn't a factual premise. Period; That should be self-evident to anyone who knows what a fact is. I don't pretend to have all the answers concerning the origins of the cosmos, but just because you say that God does those things doesn't make it true. You cling to your ideas of God out of a human insecurity to need to have answers.

Au contraire, it is indeed a completely sound premise, as evidenced by your inability to even begin to explain how the preconditions of intelligibility make any sense in an atheistic universe. Such an explanation is very easy for the Christian, and yet every atheist who has tried to provide a cogent defense of why he holds such axioms has failed miserably. The only reason we can know anything is because we live in a Universe created by the God of scripture.

Are you familiar with say the Hindu concept of God? What makes the Christian version any more valid than the Hindu one?

The Hindu concept of the supernatural does nothing to explain the preconditions of intelligibility because it eliminates the concept of types, classes, and distinctions. Additionally, the fact that the Hindu concept of deity is not providentially controlling means it cannot make sense of induction or even the laws of logic. The Hindu worldview is just as logically indefensible as your atheistic one. However, since I am a Christian and you are an atheist, let’s stick to those two worldviews.

Or for that matter any of the thousands of different religion's concepts of God throughout history? Absolutely nothing, it's all a matter of "we said, they said". It's a matter of belief, not fact.

There are nowhere near that many different religions out there, and what you will find is that they are all either self-refuting or lack the ability to make human knowledge possible. Additionally, this still doesn’t make your position any more rational, in a sense what you are trying to argue is, “Well you have proven to me that the answer has to be an even number, but since we have no way of knowing which even number I am going to insist on picking an odd number.” You claiming that we don’t know which god exists even if true would in no way make your atheism any more rational of a position.

I created this thread, the original premise was "What if you're wrong about Christianity?". Pointing out how ludicrous it is that Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old falls completely under that umbrella. You're just afraid to admit that you think the Earth is 6000 years old because even you deep down know it's ridiculous

I am not wrong about Christianity, so that question is absurd on its face value. Why would it be ridiculous to believe the earth is 6,000 years old? I think believing it is billions of years old is rather ridiculous myself.

[rob19]

Au contraire, it is indeed a completely sound premise, as evidenced by your inability to even begin to explain how the preconditions of intelligibility make any sense in an atheistic universe. Such an explanation is very easy for the Christian, and yet every atheist who has tried to provide a cogent defense of why he holds such axioms has failed miserably. The only reason we can know anything is because we live in a Universe created by the God of scripture.

First of all, no, it isn't a sound premise. Your premise isn't factual, you keep insisting that God does these things, but again you have no proof that he does these things other than 'the bible says so'. Just because you or the bible say God does those things, doesn't make it so.

The Hindu concept of the supernatural does nothing to explain the preconditions of intelligibility because it eliminates the concept of types, classes, and distinctions. Additionally, the fact that the Hindu concept of deity is not providentially controlling means it cannot make sense of induction or even the laws of logic. The Hindu worldview is just as logically indefensible as your atheistic one. However, since I am a Christian and you are an atheist, let’s stick to those two worldviews.

You have a shoddy understanding of Hinduism.

There are nowhere near that many different religions out there, and what you will find is that they are all either self-refuting or lack the ability to make human knowledge possible. Additionally, this still doesn’t make your position any more rational, in a sense what you are trying to argue is, “Well you have proven to me that the answer has to be an even number, but since we have no way of knowing which even number I am going to insist on picking an odd number.” You claiming that we don’t know which god exists even if true would in no way make your atheism any more rational of a position.

You also seem to lack an understanding of probably every religion outside Christianity. There have been countless religions in varying popularity on down throughout history, with countless versions of God, from Zeus, to Quetzalcoatl & so forth. Point being, nothing makes your God any more valid than any of the rest. It's all a matter of preference, and belief; not fact.

I am not wrong about Christianity, so that question is absurd on its face value. Why would it be ridiculous to believe the earth is 6,000 years old? I think believing it is billions of years old is rather ridiculous myself.

& there it is. I'm talking with someone who believes the Earth was created 6000 years ago. I'm not going to continue to engage you in your diatribes. You can believe whatever it is you want to believe my friend. If you really believe the Earth is six-thousand years old than you're beyond reasoning with.

[JackFinfan]

"I am not wrong about Christianity, so that question is absurd on its face value. Why would it be ridiculous to believe the earth is 6,000 years old? I think believing it is billions of years old is rather ridiculous myself."

I’ve enjoyed the debate between you two, but this statement seriously makes me feel sorry for Statler Waldorf. I couldn’t imagine the amount of denial or ignorance it would take for someone to have this opinion regarding Earth’s age.

[Statler Waldorf]

First of all, no, it isn't a sound premise. Your premise isn't factual, you keep insisting that God does these things, but again you have no proof that he does these things other than 'the bible says so'. Just because you or the bible say God does those things, doesn't make it so.

You asserting something isn’t sound doesn’t make it so, you seem to really struggle with that concept. The God of scripture is the only god that possesses the necessary attributes to account for the preconditions of intelligibility, that’s a fact that I have demonstrated with your help time and time again in this discussion. The only way you can refute this point seems to be the one thing you are incapable of doing, account for the preconditions of intelligibility in manner that is consistent with your atheism. Making baseless assertions and posting youtube videos does nothing to refute my points.

You have a shoddy understanding of Hinduism.

Do you even watch the videos you post? Nothing that I stated was not completely supported by those videos; the concept of distinction is considered to be illusion in Hinduism, yet without distinction, logical reasoning would be impossible. So Hinduism, like atheism, undermines are very ability to know anything at all. It’s a self-refuting position and therefore cannot be true.

You also seem to lack an understanding of probably every religion outside Christianity.

Funny, I was just about to say the same thing about you, but then I remembered that you don’t seem to have a very good grasp on Christianity either.

There have been countless religions in varying popularity on down throughout history, with countless versions of God, from Zeus, to Quetzalcoatl & so forth.

Countless? Really? Then how come you atheists always seem to bring up the same three or four? I knew you were going to bring up Hinduism and Zeus long before you ever did. There are not actually that many different religions, many of them are just flavors stemming from the same parent religion and suffer from the same philosophical pitfalls as the parents religions does, such as Buddhism and its parent Hinduism. Like I pointed out though, this is all just a diversion on your part because it does nothing to logically justify your atheism.

Point being, nothing makes your God any more valid than any of the rest. It's all a matter of preference, and belief; not fact.

Except my God provides the very foundation for knowledge, all other concepts of god and godlessness undermine our ability to gain knowledge. Big difference.

& there it is. I'm talking with someone who believes the Earth was created 6000 years ago. I'm not going to continue to engage you in your diatribes. You can believe whatever it is you want to believe my friend. If you really believe the Earth is six-thousand years old than you're beyond reasoning with.

I knew you were just seeking an excuse to run away from a discussion that has make you look awfully small time and hopelessly irrational. If you really can’t defend your positions, then you have my blessing to leave the discussion. If you have a change of heart and want to actually rationally defend any of your positions, including the age of the earth, I’ll be here waiting my friend.

I’ve enjoyed the debate between you two, but this statement seriously makes me feel sorry for Statler Waldorf. I couldn’t imagine the amount of denial or ignorance it would take for someone to have this opinion regarding Earth’s age.

I am glad you have enjoyed the back and forth between Rob and myself. That being said, do you really think your response here is warranted? If I have done anything through this discussion, it’s at least demonstrated I have a reason for believing what I believe whether you agree with it or not; so to just assert I am “ignorant” because I disagree with a certain tenet of modern science without knowing anything about my education, background, or current occupation seems rather absurd, don’t you think? Anyways, I just wanted to comment on that, no hard feelings.

[tylerdolphin]

So because you BELIEVE in the Bible, that makes it a provable FACT that we need a God to have intelligibility? Its fine that you believe in God and its even fine if, as a result of your beliefs, you think that God provides us intelligibility. Fine. But its not a provable fact.

The mere presence of intelligence does not prove God one way or another in a scientific or philosophical sense. Its just your opinion.

[Statler Waldorf]

So because you BELIEVE in the Bible, that makes it a provable FACT that we need a God to have intelligibility? Its fine that you believe in God and its even fine if, as a result of your beliefs, you think that God provides us intelligibility. Fine. But its not a provable fact.

Hello Tyler, good to talk with you again.

Well it depends on what you mean by “provable fact”, is it something we can demonstrate empirically? Nope, but not all truths can be demonstrated empirically, rather it is provable, but provable logically using the methods the philosopher Kant helped develop. A person must hold to certain axioms prior to gaining knowledge through experience. These axioms are not provable through experience because the very act of empirical inquiry assumes they are true a priori. However, these axioms must make sense within a person’s view or reality or else it puts them in a self-refuting system. The Christian is the only one who can make sense of such axioms; atheism and naturalism undermine such axioms. The fact such axioms would be impossible if atheism were true creates a self-refuting position for the atheist which proves theism is true through logical negation. However, only Christian-theism can account for all of the preconditions consistently, therefore Christian-theism is proven true through logical negation.

The mere presence of intelligence does not prove God one way or another in a scientific or philosophical sense. Its just your opinion.

It does prove He exists, see above.

[JackFinfan]

I am glad you have enjoyed the back and forth between Rob and myself. That being said, do you really think your response here is warranted? If I have done anything through this discussion, it’s at least demonstrated I have a reason for believing what I believe whether you agree with it or not; so to just assert I am “ignorant” because I disagree with a certain tenet of modern science without knowing anything about my education, background, or current occupation seems rather absurd, don’t you think? Anyways, I just wanted to comment on that, no hard feelings.

If I said that hippos can fly, would you need to know my education, backround or current occupation in order to call my statement ignorant. Saying the Earth is 6000 years old is just as silly. I could care less if you had a PHD, won a nobel prize, and currently worked for NASA. You still have to be suffering from either major denial or ignorance to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. In fact, I'd say that even you are aware of how rediculous a 6000 year old Earth is. That's why you dodged Rob every time he mentioned it.

[tylerdolphin]

Hello Tyler, good to talk with you again.

Well it depends on what you mean by “provable fact”, is it something we can demonstrate empirically? Nope, but not all truths can be demonstrated empirically, rather it is provable, but provable logically using the methods the philosopher Kant helped develop. A person must hold to certain axioms prior to gaining knowledge through experience. These axioms are not provable through experience because the very act of empirical inquiry assumes they are true a priori. However, these axioms must make sense within a person’s view or reality or else it puts them in a self-refuting system. The Christian is the only one who can make sense of such axioms; atheism and naturalism undermine such axioms. The fact such axioms would be impossible if atheism were true creates a self-refuting position for the atheist which proves theism is true through logical negation. However, only Christian-theism can account for all of the preconditions consistently, therefore Christian-theism is proven true through logical negation.



It does prove He exists, see above.

So why does a God make what we see and observe empirically any more or less true? It doesnt.

[Statler Waldorf]

If I said that hippos can fly, would you need to know my education, backround or current occupation in order to call my statement ignorant. Saying the Earth is 6000 years old is just as silly.

Nope, that’s a fallacious analogy. Whether or not hippos can fly is empirically testable, the age of the earth is a question that does not meet the necessary requirements of empirical scientific testing. Nice try though :- )

I could care less if you had a PHD, won a nobel prize, and currently worked for NASA.

You mean you “couldn’t care less”?

You still have to be suffering from either major denial or ignorance to believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

Really? Why? I think the same thing about people who think the earth is 4.3 Billion years old.

In fact, I'd say that even you are aware of how rediculous a 6000 year old Earth is.

Nope, sorry. Please explain to me why it’s ridiculous. Or are you unable to?

That's why you dodged Rob every time he mentioned it.

Nope, I didn’t dodge Rob, I knew that the subject was irrelevant to the topic, and wanted to keep the discussion on point. As it turns out, he was merely looking for a way to run away from the discussion because he was looking pretty irrational with all of his baseless assertions and Youtube videos he apparently never watched.