It makes sense to you...YOU being the key word. I have no idea what you are even trying to accomplish here. The statement that we need God to know something simply isnt true however you slice it.
Of course it’s true, you cannot provide a reason as to why we should assume any of the preconditions of intelligibility are true; and yet you assume every one of them is true. I have reasons that are completely consistent with my Christian worldview as to why I assume they are true. So I can make logical arguments and appeal to my knowledge and still be consistent in what I believe; your appeals to logic and knowledge completely undermine your whole worldview. You asserting you do not need God to have knowledge doesn’t prove anything.
Right off the bat, you have no idea if there really is a God or not, so your premised is flawed from the get go.
If knowledge is possible then there has to be a God, I believe knowledge is possible so therefore I believe God exists. Unless you want to go where no atheist has gone before and explain how knowledge could be possible in a purely natural universe, then go for it. Otherwise, my argument stands un-refuted.
We know because we experience things and use our brains to deduce what is happening.
Why are you having such a tough time following my point? I am talking about what we have to assume is true before we can experience anything. Reliability of one’s senses and memory, laws of logic, uniformity in nature, laws of morality, etc. You cannot appeal to experience to justify those things because they must be true prior to us experiencing anything. Yet, not a single one of them makes any sense in a purely natural and material universe. They make perfect sense when viewed through the lens of the Christian worldview.
Lets say there is a God, but he is not a loving or caring God. he just put us here and called it a day. Why wouldnt we be able to deduce perfectly logical things?
That would completely destroy our ability to know anyting because…
1. No laws of morality would exist because he/she was not a loving god, no morality would make science impossible. So the only knowledge we could gain would have to be completely first person which would be very little.
2. However, this first person knowledge would be useless since that’s a form of inductive learning and there’d be no basis for using inductive logic since you claimed the god simply walked away, so there’d be no one providentially governing nature, and therefore no reason to assume future trials would resemble past trials. Science would again be lost.
3. There’d be no reason to assume laws of logic existed because you have no way of knowing how this god thinks, and therefore logical contradictions could be a possibility within his/her creation since this god could very well think in logically contradictory terms.
4. There’d be no reason to assume you were created in a manner that allowed you to accurately perceive reality since you already stated we know nothing about this god, so why assume it created in way that allowed us to accurately perceive what is going on around us.
The list of problems just goes on and on. Knowledge requires a God that is good, honest, and providentially governing of creation. The only one that fits that bill is the Christian God.
Lots of animals can do that and they certainly have no use for a God and God doesnt have an interest in saving them.
God still providentially created them and the world they live in thus making it possible for them to gain knowledge. Your argument is like saying, “My dog doesn’t believe air exists, therefore my dog and I don’t need air to live.” I am not saying you have to believe God exists in order to gain knowledge, I am saying that if God didn’t exist then knowledge would be impossible regardless of whether you believe he exists or not.
No, I already gave you the logical form of my argument, so why bother creating a misrepresentation of it? You’re wasting your time. Here I will express it for you again, but this time in negative form since I think that is a bit simpler…
P1. If God doesn’t exist, then knowledge is impossible.
P2. Knowledge is possible
C. Therefore, God exists.
I am sure that we both agree with premise 2, so I will save the time of arguing for it. Premise 1 is established through the fact that all of those who argue against God’s existence make assumptions in their arguing that could not be true if what they were arguing for was true. Namely, in an atheistic universe there are no logical reasons to assume the preconditions of intelligibility are indeed true. If you have no reason to assume those things are true, then you have no foundation for obtaining knowledge with any degree of certainty. The conclusion is simply a logical outcome since premise 2 denies the consequent of premise 1.
Nice to see you’re living up to your role as an “irrational atheist” by merely making appeals to ridicule, which of course is logically fallacious behavior.
Last edited by Statler Waldorf; 08-22-2012 at 07:22 PM. Reason: formatting
Perseverance of the Saints
I just assumed that when you claimed I was ignorant that meant you assumed you were not, was that not a safe assumption? Do you view yourself as ignorant on such topics?
I just stated that I give far more weight to what almost all respectable scientists say over your belief.
Well then if you lived in the 19th century you would have believed the earth was 6,000 years old since the majority of respectable scientists believed that then. That’s why merely rolling the dice and going with the majority of scientists is never a good idea. Rather I suggest you stick to the merits of the two opposing arguments.
Also, I never said that science is determined by majority opinion, once again you're making up arguments that don't exist.
Then why did you bother making a point about what 99 percent of scientists believe when you knew it was completely irrelevant? Seems to me like you’re changing your tune a bit now.
Science is all about skepticism.
So that’s why you laugh at people who are skeptical of evolution and the current views on the age of the earth??? Riiiight. Modern science is just as much about marching in line like a good little mindless soldier as ever.
The fact that no credible argument can be made against the world being billions of years old from a reputable scientist is pretty convincing.
Well sure when you fallaciously define a “reputable scientist” as only those who believe the earth is billions of years old a priori, and then you turn around and use that to justify your belief that the earth is billions of years old. The evidence suggesting the earth is far younger is far more compelling to those who weigh both sides.
Are you really arguing that no credible argument ‘can’ be made for a young earth? Or are you simply arguing that you don’t believe any credible argument ‘has’ been made? There’s a big difference.
Whoa slow down there my friend; first let’s establish that radiometric dating even works using empirical verification. Can you provide me with an example where a rock of known age through direct observation has been accurately dated using radiometric dating? If you can’t first establish that the method works on rocks of known age then we have no logical reason to assume it magically works on rocks of unknown age.
Carbon dating only works on organic matter, it cannot be used to date rocks, and its half-life is far too short to date anything into the millions of years old, much less the billions, so that can’t be used to establish the earth is billions of years old. I hope you already knew that though since apparently I am the “ignorant” one on such matters :-P
I'm still waiting for you to debunk radiometric dating. If you don't think radiometric dating is reliable, then provide me a study/data/credible opinions that suggest otherwise. I'll be waiting (probably for a very long time). I can't wait for the headline on CNN News. "Guy on football forum debunks radiometric dating." lol
One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.
You're captaining a sinking ship, my funny friend.
Exactly Rob. The oldest rocks we've dated have been independently verified by using 4 or more different radiometric techniques. 4 completely different half-lives, yet they all say the same thing. Evidence wise, that's as good as you're going to get.
Originally Posted by statler waldorf
I can see why the focus of rebuttal in this thread has been on the first premise, but the one people should be focusing on is the second. It's the one his entire argument is based on, yet he's very cleverly hiding it in the middle as if it's an axiom to draw attention away from it. Look how it reads when ordered this way:
P1. Knowledge is possible.
P2. For knowledge to be possible, God must exist.
C. Therefore, God exists.
See how much more it sticks out now? To get to God existing he must first establish that knowledge is possible, yet he can't do that because the "proof" that knowledge is possible is that God exists. It's utterly circular and therefore nonsensical.