If a person believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God, yet this person cannot even account for his own ability to reason, then why should this person be taken seriously when his own conclusions are based on such shaky foundations?
Does one need to know the inventor of the fork in order to eat with it?
How on Earth have we been able to feed ourselves all this time with such shaky foundations?
You guy's said yourself that you think human reason is reliable. How does it affect the reasoning itself if the person can't account for the origin of reason?
I am committed to belief in God, as the most morally demanding, psychologically enriching, intellectually satisfying and imaginatively fruitful hypothesis about the ultimate nature of reality known to me - Keith Ward
If a person believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God, yet this person cannot even account for his own ability to reason, then why should this person be taken seriously when his own conclusions are based on such shaky foundations?
Does one need to know the inventor of the fork in order to eat with it?
How on Earth have we been able to feed ourselves all this time with such shaky foundations?
You guy's said yourself that you think human reason is reliable. How does it affect the reasoning itself if the person can't account for the origin of reason?
Taking your example a little further, it would be like someone who becomes genuinely interested in forks never questioning or looking for where the fork came from, or making any attempt to understand the fork.
If one was genuinely interested, those questions should pop up immediately.
-- Josh
“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon
1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"
I agree, but they can still use the fork correctly. I think the same applies to knowledge and reason.
To me, the things Danny and jlay are saying about the Atheists flawed worldview because of not being able to account for reason is equivalent to if a person didn't know where the fork came from, was eating with it, and someone said "you have no right to eat with that". Even if they can't account for the origin of reason, you can't dismiss all of their arguements just because of that. Their arguements themselves concerning their worldview could still be sound.
I am committed to belief in God, as the most morally demanding, psychologically enriching, intellectually satisfying and imaginatively fruitful hypothesis about the ultimate nature of reality known to me - Keith Ward
Seraph wrote:I agree, but they can still use the fork correctly. I think the same applies to knowledge and reason.
To me, the things Danny and jlay are saying about the Atheists flawed worldview because of not being able to account for reason is equivalent to if a person didn't know where the fork came from, was eating with it, and someone said "you have no right to eat with that". Even if they can't account for the origin of reason, you can't dismiss all of their arguements just because of that. Their arguements themselves concerning their worldview could still be sound.
Their arguments may be sound until they attempt to use the very reason that was bestowed upon them to deny its source. That's when their worldview completely falls apart.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Seraph wrote:I agree, but they can still use the fork correctly. I think the same applies to knowledge and reason.
To me, the things Danny and jlay are saying about the Atheists flawed worldview because of not being able to account for reason is equivalent to if a person didn't know where the fork came from, was eating with it, and someone said "you have no right to eat with that". Even if they can't account for the origin of reason, you can't dismiss all of their arguements just because of that. Their arguements themselves concerning their worldview could still be sound.
I'll quote what Van Till told Bahnsen once... "Atheists and Christians know how to count, sometimes atheist can count better than Christians, but they cannot account for their counting."
It's the same way in theism/versus atheism. In the atheists universe, what they demand is everything to be brought in with the 5 senses/reason and that be "truth," but they can't even get off the ground with that flawed way of thinking. Especially once they think nature is, all that there is. A lot of atheists arguments against Christianity are either
illogical, or straw mans... sometimes they bring up good points but even if we skipped the first step and grant them neutrality their arguments wouldn't hold much water and could be answered with given time.
Atheist: "Science says it, I believe it, That settles it."
spartanII wrote:I'll quote what Van Till told Bahnsen once... "Atheists and Christians know how to count, sometimes atheist can count better than Christians, but they cannot account for their counting."
It's the same way in theism/versus atheism. In the atheists universe, what they demand is everything to be brought in with the 5 senses/reason and that be "truth," but they can't even get off the ground with that flawed way of thinking. Especially once they think nature is, all that there is. A lot of atheists arguments against Christianity are either illogical, or straw mans... sometimes they bring up good points but even if we skipped the first step and grant them neutrality their arguments wouldn't hold much water and could be answered with given time.
Well put, however, one has to ask himself how can atheism be so popular these days then? How large amount of public brainwashing has been required to create the popular image that a Christian is deluded by blind faith, while an atheist is so wise, rational and enlightened? Is there a proper response from the atheists to our arguments at all? I've been trying to find it, yet I only come across predictable bullet-dodging tactics. If it's indeed so, it should be the final nail in the coffin of the atheist ideology, yet atheism is still alive. Looking at the apparent confidence showed by new atheists these days, one would think they really do have a case. I'm shocked (negatively surprised) by the possibility that a refuted, defeated worldview may be on the rise in the 21st century.
Am I the only one who thinks like this?
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Reactionary wrote:Well put, however, one has to ask himself how can atheism be so popular these days then? How large amount of public brainwashing has been required to create the popular image that a Christian is deluded by blind faith, while an atheist is so wise, rational and enlightened? Is there a proper response from the atheists to our arguments at all? I've been trying to find it, yet I only come across predictable bullet-dodging tactics. If it's indeed so, it should be the final nail in the coffin of the atheist ideology, yet atheism is still alive. Looking at the apparent confidence showed by new atheists these days, one would think they really do have a case. I'm shocked (negatively surprised) by the possibility that a refuted, defeated worldview may be on the rise in the 21st century.
Am I the only one who thinks like this?
For one to see the light one must open their eyes. No one can be forced to believe anything they're not ready to believe themselves.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
DannyM wrote:
I know. But you are agnostic, right?
Maybe in the past at some point, but nothing I've said thus far in the thread matches with that definition so I'd wager a no.
DannyM wrote:You’ve already admitted to having no account for your presuppositions. Yet you are plodding along in this inconsistency. If a person believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God, yet this person cannot even account for his own ability to reason, then why should this person be taken seriously when his own conclusions are based on such shaky foundations?
See above. This is an entire misrepresentation, If I held such a belief there is no reason for me to be here in the first place
DannyM wrote:
I know. But you are agnostic, right?
Maybe in the past at some point, but nothing I've said thus far in the thread matches with that definition so I'd wager a no.
DannyM wrote:You’ve already admitted to having no account for your presuppositions. Yet you are plodding along in this inconsistency. If a person believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God, yet this person cannot even account for his own ability to reason, then why should this person be taken seriously when his own conclusions are based on such shaky foundations?
See above. This is an entire misrepresentation, If I held such a belief there is no reason for me to be here in the first place
LOL. Okay, what are you, if you do not mind my asking?
If a person believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God, yet this person cannot even account for his own ability to reason, then why should this person be taken seriously when his own conclusions are based on such shaky foundations?
Does one need to know the inventor of the fork in order to eat with it?
How on Earth have we been able to feed ourselves all this time with such shaky foundations?
You guy's said yourself that you think human reason is reliable. How does it affect the reasoning itself if the person can't account for the origin of reason?
Of course human reason is reliable. No-one is saying otherwise. I don't see how this negates the argument. Amusing fork analogy, though
DannyM wrote:
Ah, well it seems to me you have been portraying yourself as agnostic. I don't see where the misrepresentation is.
It "seems" to me that you would like to pin me down to agnostic so you can point out the flaws i'm all too well aware of. Sorry it's not going according to plan, I disagree with the statement that knowledge of God is unknown or unknowable, therefore I'm not agnostic in your sense of the word. The misrepresentation is PLAINLY obvious with this in mind.
I agree, but they can still use the fork correctly. I think the same applies to knowledge and reason.
Seraph, again, I think you are arguing against something that we aren't presenting as presup. No one says atheists can't use logic or reason. They do. They just have no basis to defend doing such. Why should the atheist trust the laws of logic? If you peruse enough atheist philosophy you will see that they are trying to undermine the law of non-contradiction. Trying to re-write the rules to better suit their worldview.
An atheist can have morals. That doesn't mean they can account for why they should have morals.
Echoside wrote: But it's not obvious to me
If you see a sculpture, is the existence of the artist obvious?
With the info you have, do you think that a creator god exist?
Last edited by jlay on Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
DannyM wrote:
Ah, well it seems to me you have been portraying yourself as agnostic. I don't see where the misrepresentation is.
It "seems" to me that you would like to pin me down to agnostic so you can point out the flaws i'm all too well aware of. Sorry it's not going according to plan, I disagree with the statement that knowledge of God is unknown or unknowable, therefore I'm not agnostic in your sense of the word. The misrepresentation is PLAINLY obvious with this in mind.
Now you are just playing games. But regardless, you carry with you your own assumptions and prersuppositions. You are perfectly "pinned down" in this respect. And until you give an account for your presuppositions you will always be logically inconsistent. So the evasion game doesn't really wash.
Of course human reason is reliable. No-one is saying otherwise. I don't see how this negates the argument. Amusing fork analogy, though 