by Rex 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
My experience is that evolutionists do much the same thing. They start out with the position that there is no creator
Ugh. Not true. Just not true. They start from a position of neutrality, and make conclusions based on empirical evidence that is observable and testable. A true scientist is simply neutral to metaphysical propositions.
Ugh. Not true. Just not true. They start from a position of neutrality, and make conclusions based on empirical evidence that is observable and testable. A true scientist is simply neutral to metaphysical propositions.
EVERYONE has bias. Some are less biased than others, but you can never get a simply neutral study, even in science (moreso when you consider who funds it).
Terry said:
>1.Evolution tells us that that which works best survives. Hence, success at existence conforms with how things in nature co-operate to exist. KNOWING has nothing to do with it. Mozart was a helluva composer at an extremely early age. He was not born KNOWING music. His manner of listening and doing worked, however, to create music which was itself "informed" by great orderliness and form.
Evolution is obviously in error then. How can you account for sheep? Let's go another step: How did a use less organ gradually become the eye and why did it 'survive' in its useless state? How did anything of substance develop from a mishmash of ingredients and happenstance?
Mozart was obviously born with an ability, a gift for creating music. How is it that we can enjoy the esthetics of his music, the sunset, a painted picture or a brilliant work of literature? Where did all of that fit in the 'survival of the fittest'?
>2.Logic is the art of noncontradictory measurement. When you measure something in nature (reality) you use a standard that serves to represent that reality in a transformed state (numbers, words, etc.) The standard is invented to serve the very purpose of measurement. Ad hoc. When religious descriptions are employed to represent super-reality (i.e. imagined reality) THERE ARE NO REFERENTS! You cannot point to the imperceptible. Consequently, all religious discussion is metaphor pretending to be data!
Where is your 'referent' for morality and order if there are no moral absolutes? You are beating yorself to death with your own logical club! You don't need referents for testimony other than the believability of the preponderance of the evidence. Scripture does indeed have much evidence, more so than any naturalist theories or philosophies.
>3. Misunderstanding the nature of CONCEPTUAL representatioan of imagination leads to BELIEF. Positing the operations of an invisible deity and then losing track of the fact it is only a POSIT is the basis of all religions.
The 'conceptual representation' responds to my comminication! No one is losing track of anything. You start with the evidence of Christ, his birth, death and resurrection. You observe how the eyewitness testimonies say he viewed Old Testament prophecy and law. Christ is the basis for all true Christian belief then his response to my thoughts and prayers confirms the validity of the premise: He lives. He is God and He has a law for me to observe and that law is written on my heart.
>4.Insisting the potential objectivity of God is the same as the ACTUAL objectivity of God is the first clue the believer has fallen into the hole he dug for himself.
I recognize that but you have misunderstood the author's claims. He is admitting his own presuppositions whereas the naturalist often claims he has none! His own presuppositions are based on the empirical data at hand: scriptural testimony, gelogical testimony and we can even add the testimony of the science of physics.
>Atheism is belief just as religion is belief. THERE MUST BE DATA to confirm one's logic for a person to KNOW something. If one must rely on metaphor, analogy and authority to bolster one's claims the foundational belief is supposition.
Atheism is impossible, since you would have be God to know there is no God! LOL
>Presupposition is when you lose track of your suppositions before you begin linking your chain (of facts or metaphors.)
Welcome to the club!
Rex
Hi Kaput,
I've seen the darkness that you are hinting at and it strikes me as being unenlightened....
Rex
It's not possible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn't even respect logic. Rex's dribblings would be funny if it wasn't so sad. rem
Rex, Ive been reading up on presuppositions and a friend sent me this link:
why is it that apologists love presupposition? they all just love it. i don't get it. why spend so much time on such simple mental garbage?
if you want to talk about presupposition, rex, then i would like to know what school you belong to? Van Tillian or Clarkian?
rexly & forscher,
re-read the definition i provided of presupposition. scientists start with knowledge, therefore they do NOT start with presupossition, even if that knowledge comes from other scientific studies. even in hypothesis, a scientist is hypothesising based on previous knowledge. you will not find a scientist who says, contrary to all evidence and knowledge: "well, i'm feeling frisky today, so lets hypothesize that an invisible pink unicorn created the heavens and the earth, and see what we can find on it!" creationists do not start with scientific knowledge, therefore they do start with presupposition. afterall, why would they be trying to prove that god created everything, when there is no knowledge or evidence that he exists?
presupposition: the act of presupposing; a supposition made prior to having knowledge (as for the purpose of argument)
sheesh, since argument is all you creationists have, then this makes sense. argument without evidence.
if you had read my initial post, this would have been clear. it seems you only read the first paragraph.
rexilaulius,
The Atheist Bible? Naturalism is it's 'Old Testament', Evolution is it's New Testament and the alleged 'Age of Reason' is it's comparative interpretation of all facts, with the PRESUPPOSITION that 'no supernatural events occur because we cannot measure these in any way.'
nice strawman. you learn well from your dark lord.
forscher,
My experience is that evolutionists do much the same thing. They start out with the position that there is no creator other than pure chance and work to prop up that position. That is not science either.
there is a mental discontinuity in the statement. biologists do not care (negative position, not positive) if there is a creator behind it all or not. the ToE does not technically touch on such a matter.
biologists work via the scientific method like all scientists. to say that they ignore it like xians do, is the height of delusion.
TS
oh, looky. i have found out what this is all based in.
i would have a good look at it rex, especially the part on circular logic:
Basics.
What is; is.
That is what we call the Law of Existence.
For a thing to exist; it has to be something.
That is the Law of Identity.
Everything that exists IS something.
Nature (the Natural) is what is and what exists.
That takes in EVERY possible thing because there is no room beyond what exists for anything else except the imaginary.
God is outside the things which exist because he is not in nature being SUPERnatural. There can exist nothing beyond what is reality.
This means there is no room for God to exist.
Except in the imaginary. The very category of the SPIRITUAL or the SUPERnatural is a mental construct or canvas on which we can paint in whatever serves our desire to make an awe-inspiring non-exist entity into something "real".
The human mind can hold within itself those "things" which have no referent: (i.e. you cannot point to where or what they are and make them ostensible). These mental constructs are abstractions and inferences; analogous to reality but not sharing reality.
When the human mind begins to insist these constructs have as much reality or MORE or a BETTER reality than ostensible things; that is when BELIEF and FAITH are born.
What is this FAITH?
Losing track of the laws of existence and identity.
That's all.
God "exists" but God does not EXIST.
All our proofs must resort to metaphor, analogy, imagination, supposition and other borrowed abstracts. We can be made to see the beauty and majesty of such mental constructs. When we experience the emotions connected with Absolute Abstractions of a majestic and inspiring nature and connect it to the Belief that our mental constructs have existence and identity this serves to substitute for ACTUALITY of proof.
It is something we are taught to do almost from birth.
We are taught to imagine. We are fed an emotional connection to our imagination. We make a place in our consciousness for the unreal to "live" and "exist" alongside the real and existing things. This FANTASY world often has a greater desirability than the actual world. People in general have had their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy atrophy. They crave fantasy with such a strong conviction it is unthinkable that it not have an equal footing with the actual nature of things.
We seek it in dreams, daydreams, stories, entertainment, music and religion. It is a refuge from the kill and eat world of reality that surrounds us. We develop a taste for the imaginary abstractions because we can make a story that is sensible and comprehensible out of it.
Until we develop the skill for separating the imaginary from the ostensible we confuse reality and unreality. The one niche in all of society in which the supernatural has been banned is SCIENCE. It is not co-incidental that this is the one area in which most of man's progress has been seen. (Just as a reality casts a shadow which itself has the shape of the thing but not the substance; so too, Science casts a shadow which is shaped in the paranormal. It is illusory.)
GOD is society's mental construct. It is a Meme. It is passed on through ritual, word, image, art, music, literature and the force of AUTHORITY.
God has always changed according to what society needs.
Primitive man needed only to appease the thunder and lightning and assure good hunting and flourishing crops.
Today, man needs to be loved and promised a retirement with good benefits.
El was god and now El-ah is (Allah) for Muslims.
Elohim is for Jews.
Lord=God for most Christians.
Jah for JW's. (Even though it was wrong and Yah is more accurate.)
God is everywhere and nowhere. God is our Matrix.
Do you dare awake from such a magnficent dream?
T.
Hi Tetly,
I believe my school of presuppositions is the Clark Kentian......
>re-read the definition i provided of presupposition. scientists start with knowledge, therefore they do NOT start with presupossition, even if that knowledge comes from other scientific studies.
Don't they start with 'assumptions' (i.e. bad science) for dating geology? My head just about explodes when some natualist starts quacking about "5 billion years ago....this and that happened, by the way we don't know exactly how or why it happened, we just know that there could not be any intelligent design involved!"
Some scientists do indeed try to consider all of the evidence, not ruling out anything unmeasurable by natural means, and accepting that which is backed by solid human testimony that would pass in any court of law.....some, I said, very few it seems if they value their own tenure and research funds.
IF you categorically reject evidence of any sort then you very well do start with presuppositions. Here is a valid one for you.
1) We are here and we exist or we would not be communicating.
2) We are obviously designed well enough to continue to propagate our race.
3) The ecosystem works in basic harmony and balance and our planet is quite unique as far as present science can prove.
4) Any fool can see that!
5) Physics tells us their had to be a 'First Cause'.
6) Therefore God very well does exist and by a preponderance of the evidence.
7) Science has the task of proving there is no God.
8) It has not sone so, it is not in any sort of agreement as to our origins nor as to how we continue to exist.
> even in hypothesis, a scientist is hypothesising based on previous knowledge. you will not find a scientist who says, contrary to all evidence and knowledge:
Oh really?
"well, i'm feeling frisky today, so lets hypothesize that an invisible pink unicorn created the heavens and the earth, and see what we can find on it!": creationists do not start with scientific knowledge, therefore they do start with presupposition. Afterall, why would they be trying to prove that god created everything, when there is no knowledge or evidence that he exists?
>You need to stop the flaming: You infer that creationists are some how 'not scientific', intimidation by arogance and condescension is not a valid argument. BTW, on the last question....look around you. The evidence is staring back at you in the mirror.
Rex
