Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse

[Locke]

Nice fallacious appeal to authority! Obviously they don’t teach any sort of logic to psychology majors in this day and age. I knew you couldn’t actually address any of my points; you’re so inept when it comes to these sorts of debates it would be funny if it were not so downright sad.

There is no talking logic to an ideologue. You make your own logic that is logical to no one but yourself. "Knowledge is possible, so god exists" makes sense to no one but you. Yet despite absolutely no one agreeing with you, you hold firm that YOU'RE right and hundreds of others are wrong. That's textbook delusion...

[Statler Waldorf]

There is no talking logic to an ideologue.

How would you know? You have yet to begin “talking logic”, committing logical fallacies is not “talking logic”.

You make your own logic that is logical to no one but yourself.

Sorry, you made a fallacious appeal to authority, that’s illogical, I didn’t make that up so stop whining about it.

"Knowledge is possible, so god exists" makes sense to no one but you.

Actually that’s not my complete argument, knowledge presupposes the existence of God; therefore we can know that God exists because knowledge is possible. That’s a proof that’s been used by many, and refuted by none. The fact you don’t like it is utterly irrelevant.

Yet despite absolutely no one agreeing with you, you hold firm that YOU'RE right and hundreds of others are wrong.

Such ignorance; truth exists completely independent of consensus or majority opinion, the fact none of the God haters on here agree with me is again utterly irrelevant, to be honest I’d be a bit worried if someone like you did agree with me given your poor track record in the arena of rational thought.

That's textbook delusion...

Being logical and rational is textbook delusion? I think you need to study up in your claimed field of expertise a bit more. Delusion is not disagreeing with the consensus or majority opinion, rather it is ignoring proper reasoning or validated facts; given the fact that you ignore my sound and valid syllogism you’re more of a textbook case of delusion than I ever will be. I feel like the guy working at the sanitarium and all of the residents there are calling me crazy because I disagree with every one of them, it’s hilarious. You’re irrational! Therefore, I don’t give one iota if you agree with me or not.

[spydertl79]

From wikipedia:


The chief criticism of all formulations of the TAG revolve around its premise that "without a god, knowledge cannot exist". While acceptance of this premise can lead to the conclusion that a god must exist, the argument itself provides no demonstrated necessity to accept the premise. Martin (1997) suggested the invalidity of this assertion when he reformulated the TAG as the 'Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God' starting with the negation of TAG's premise, namely, that 'the existence of knowledge presupposes the non-existence of God'
^{To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.}

Several other criticisms of the TAG have emerged. One says that TAG is not a distinctive form of argument: this objection claims that the form of the TAG (indirect, transcendental) is really just a reworking of the standard deductive and inductive forms of reasoning; it claims that there is really not much difference between
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[Statler Waldorf]

From wikipedia:

The chief criticism of all formulations of the TAG revolve around its premise that "without a god, knowledge cannot exist". While acceptance of this premise can lead to the conclusion that a god must exist, the argument itself provides no demonstrated necessity to accept the premise. Martin (1997) suggested the invalidity of this assertion when he reformulated the TAG as the 'Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God' starting with the negation of TAG's premise, namely, that 'the existence of knowledge presupposes the non-existence of God'[2]
Several other criticisms of the TAG have emerged. One says that TAG is not a distinctive form of argument: this objection claims that the form of the TAG (indirect, transcendental) is really just a reworking of the standard deductive and inductive forms of reasoning; it claims that there is really not much difference between Thomas Aquinas and Cornelius Van Til.

Wikipedia? SMH

Martin formulated his attempt at refuting the syllogism back in 1997, unfortunately for him Bahnsen had already refuted his attempted refutation in the mid 90’s, Frame did it again after 1997 to add insult to injury (Martin backed out of several scholarly debates where he was challenged to back his refutation up). A person doesn’t have to demonstrate their premises in a syllogism (we are not talking about inductive arguments here); I am not sure where you guys keep getting that idea. Until you can actually refute it by postulating a manner in which knowledge can be possible in a purely natural world the syllogism stands as un-refuted and therefore sound.
The second objection is merely a theological objection because it has no bearing on whether the form of the argument is valid or not (even if it were direct rather than indirect it’d still be valid).

[spydertl79]

I reject the premise that god must exist for knowledge to be possible until I see evidence that supports this claim.

Do you have any evidence to back your assertion? If not then I believe this line of reasoning is nothing more than an argument from incredulity as your argument would then be along the lines of "I can't explain why, therefore god exists"

There are in fact many evidence based claims as to why knowledge exists in the field of neuroscience. Why should someone believe your initial assertion? Sell me.

[Statler Waldorf]

I reject the premise that god must exist for knowledge to be possible until I see evidence that supports this claim.

Spyder,

First of all, welcome back, you have been missed.

You are free to reject any premise you like, however you arbitrarily objecting a premise has no bearing on whether the syllogism proves God exists or not. In logic there is no requirement to demonstrate a premise is indeed true, the burden is actually on the critics to refute it. You’ll notice that Martin’s objection to the syllogism had nothing to do with a lack of evidential support, but rather that he felt that you could reverse it and use it to prove that you cannot know anything if the Christian God existed. Unfortunately, his reversed syllogism was easily refuted because he didn’t have a great working knowledge of the Christian concept of God.

Here is an example of a sound syllogism that lacks evidential support…
P1. All electrons repel one another
P2 “Particle A” is an electron
C. Therefore, “Particle A” will repel another electron

Now I don’t have to give you evidence that all the electrons in the known universe repel one another, such a task isn’t even possible, and yet this premise is considered sound because nobody has been able to point to an electron that didn’t repel another electron.

The premise that “if the Christian God didn’t exist, knowledge would be impossible” is supported by two facts…
1. Revelation from an all knowing and truthful God certainly does make knowledge possible.
2. All other theories of knowledge reduce to subjectivism and ultimately skepticism. Even a cursory glance at the history of philosophy demonstrates this, for thousands of years philosophers have been poking holes in one another’s theories of knowledge (Kant vs. Hume for example), the Christian theory of knowledge is the only one that is internally consistent because it is the only one that does not render mankind epistemologically autonomous.

Do you have any evidence to back your assertion? If not then I believe this line of reasoning is nothing more than an argument from incredulity as your argument would then be along the lines of "I can't explain why, therefore god exists"

No, I can explain why, that’s the point. The existence of the Christian God explains everything that the natural philosopher is hopelessly unable to account for. Eventually you’re going to have to just make an inference to the best possible explanation; that explanation is that the Christian God exists.

There are in fact many evidence based claims as to why knowledge exists in the field of neuroscience. Why should someone believe your initial assertion? Sell me.

I am not talking about how our brains function; I am talking about how we can make sense of the necessary preconditions of knowledge in a purely natural universe. Take the laws of logic for example, how can you have room for immaterial, immutable, and universal laws that discern truth in a purely material and natural universe? You cannot, and yet they are necessary for us to know anything at all. The Christian can make sense of the laws of logic (they are a reflection of the way the creator thinks), and yet the materialist cannot and therefore has no reason to believe in logic, ergo knowledge is possible if God exists and it is not if only nature exists.

[rob19]

In logic there is no requirement to demonstrate a premise is indeed true, the burden is actually on the critics to refute it.

Disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

P1 If knowledge is possible, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists
P2 Knowledge is possible
C Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists

[rob19]

Here is an example of a sound syllogism that lacks evidential support…

P1. All electrons repel one another
P2 “Particle A” is an electron
C. Therefore, “Particle A” will repel another electron

Now I don’t have to give you evidence that all the electrons in the known universe repel one another, such a task isn’t even possible, and yet this premise is considered sound because nobody has been able to point to an electron that didn’t repel another electron.

In other words; just like that syllogism doesn't prove that all electrons repel one another, your syllogism doesn't prove god's existence.

You're confusing a valid syllogism with a sound syllogism. An argument is only sound if it is both valid, & all the premises are actually true. Here's an example of a valid syllogism, but not a sound one;

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Now, this is logically valid, but obviously the premises are not true.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[spydertl79]

Spyder,

First of all, welcome back, you have been missed.

You are free to reject any premise you like, however you arbitrarily objecting a premise has no bearing on whether the syllogism proves God exists or not. In logic there is no requirement to demonstrate a premise is indeed true, the burden is actually on the critics to refute it. You’ll notice that Martin’s objection to the syllogism had nothing to do with a lack of evidential support, but rather that he felt that you could reverse it and use it to prove that you cannot know anything if the Christian God existed. Unfortunately, his reversed syllogism was easily refuted because he didn’t have a great working knowledge of the Christian concept of God.

Here is an example of a sound syllogism that lacks evidential support…
P1. All electrons repel one another
P2 “Particle A” is an electron
C. Therefore, “Particle A” will repel another electron

Now I don’t have to give you evidence that all the electrons in the known universe repel one another, such a task isn’t even possible, and yet this premise is considered sound because nobody has been able to point to an electron that didn’t repel another electron.

The premise that “if the Christian God didn’t exist, knowledge would be impossible” is supported by two facts…
1. Revelation from an all knowing and truthful God certainly does make knowledge possible.
2. All other theories of knowledge reduce to subjectivism and ultimately skepticism. Even a cursory glance at the history of philosophy demonstrates this, for thousands of years philosophers have been poking holes in one another’s theories of knowledge (Kant vs. Hume for example), the Christian theory of knowledge is the only one that is internally consistent because it is the only one that does not render mankind epistemologically autonomous.



No, I can explain why, that’s the point. The existence of the Christian God explains everything that the natural philosopher is hopelessly unable to account for. Eventually you’re going to have to just make an inference to the best possible explanation; that explanation is that the Christian God exists.



I am not talking about how our brains function; I am talking about how we can make sense of the necessary preconditions of knowledge in a purely natural universe. Take the laws of logic for example, how can you have room for immaterial, immutable, and universal laws that discern truth in a purely material and natural universe? You cannot, and yet they are necessary for us to know anything at all. The Christian can make sense of the laws of logic (they are a reflection of the way the creator thinks), and yet the materialist cannot and therefore has no reason to believe in logic, ergo knowledge is possible if God exists and it is not if only nature exists.

Thank you, you are kind. Just been working 60 hour weeks and don't have the time or energy to come on here to debate.

Your response appears to be a really long-winded way to say that you have no evidence or proof to back up your stated "facts." Therefore, they are not scientific facts and rather beliefs as they are not backed by substantial evidenciary proof.

Scientifically, knowledge is a function of the chemical and electromagnetic processes inside of the human brain. If you believe otherwise then that is fine, but your beliefs are again not backed by any evidence that I am aware of.

[Statler Waldorf]

Disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Easy enough.

P1 If knowledge is possible, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists

This premise is easily refuted, the FSM does not have the necessary attributes to account for the preconditions of knowledge, the God of scripture does; so not only is your premise false but your entire point is guilty of the fallacy of faulty analogy.

C Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists

This syllogism doesn’t prove the FSM exists because I refuted premise 1, in order for a syllogism to be sound both premises must be true.

In other words; just like that syllogism doesn't prove that all electrons repel one another, your syllogism doesn't prove god's existence.

What are you talking about? Of course that syllogism doesn’t prove all electrons repel one another, that’s a premise in that syllogism, the syllogism’s conclusion is what does the proving. The syllogism proves “Particle A” will repel another electron just like my syllogism’s conclusion proves that God exists. Why you would confound the purpose of the premise of one syllogism with purpose of the conclusion of another is beyond me.

You're confusing a valid syllogism with a sound syllogism. An argument is only sound if it is both valid, & all the premises are actually true. Here's an example of a valid syllogism, but not a sound one;

The guy who doesn’t understand the difference between the premises and conclusion of a syllogism is trying to teach me about validity and soundness? I have been quite clear on numerous occasions that not only is my syllogism fully valid it is also completely sound because both premises are true.

Now, this is logically valid, but obviously the premises are not true.

The premises are not true because they can be refuted, you have not refuted either of my premises, faulty analogy again.

Your response appears to be a really long-winded way to say that you have no evidence or proof to back up your stated "facts." Therefore, they are not scientific facts and rather beliefs as they are not backed by substantial evidenciary proof.

Come on Spyder, you are better than this. My syllogism is an indirect form of a deductive proof, science deals only with induction (a weaker form of proof); so you are objecting to my proof because it’s not a weaker form of proof? That doesn’t make any sense, not all truth claims can be tested scientifically. I was quite clear as to why my proof indeed does prove God exists, knowledge presupposes God exists so if knowledge is possible we have proof that God does exist.

Scientifically, knowledge is a function of the chemical and electromagnetic processes inside of the human brain. If you believe otherwise then that is fine, but your beliefs are again not backed by any evidence that I am aware of.

You are confounding brain function with knowledge (an unborn baby’s brain functions perfectly right before it is born but it doesn’t know anything yet). There are numerous preconditions that must be true before we can know anything at all that have nothing to do with the chemical processes in the brain. The laws of logic for instance, if the laws of logic didn’t exist we couldn’t know anything at all; but how do you explain how immutable, universal, and immaterial laws that discern truth can exist in a purely natural and material universe? The Christian can make perfect sense of such laws, the naturalistic materialist cannot.

I’ll give you another example…

P1 If I didn’t exist, questioning my own existence would be impossible.
P2 Questioning my own existence is not impossible.
C. Therefore I exist.

This is exactly the same form of proof I used, I know premise one is true because I can postulate a manner in which my existence makes questioning my existence possible (just like God’s existence would make knowledge possible) and I cannot postulate a way in which I could question my own existence if I didn’t exist (just like none of you can postulate a way in which knowledge can be possible if God didn’t exist). I realize you all take issue with the proof not because it has anything formally wrong with it, but rather because you don’t like what it proves; I can’t help you all there, that’s a personal matter you are all going to have to deal with on your own terms.