Alpha Atheist Turns "Agnostic"!

[BuddyRey]

Not way. Without the axiom of Biblical truths, you can't prove anything at all.

Well, I'll put it this way. God can be known and felt on a *personal* level, but until He either shows Himself in this world, or we all meet Him in His, that knowledge will always remain as something we each carry individually. In other words, the *consensus* part of it remains, for the foreseeable future, to be unprovable.

The only collective certainty we have is that nothing is certain.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There is much more to the world than Biblians and Abiblians. There are 950 million(with an M) Hindus ALONE. 950 MILLION. No one is shoving their Bhagavad Gita down your throat. But then nothing says "Christ" more than hubris, I suppose.

Truth isnt based on majority opinion. If that was the case, tyranny would be right because it seems to be pretty popular, right?

 

[otherone]

Truth isnt based on majority opinion.

And talking louder doesn't make people sound smarter.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Well, I'll put it this way. God can be known and felt on a *personal* level, but until He either shows Himself in this world, or we all meet Him in His, that knowledge will always remain as something we each carry individually. In other words, the *consensus* part of it remains, for the foreseeable future, to be unprovable.

The only collective certainty we have is that nothing is certain.

Well, I think you're right that there is the personal element to Truth, our life and how the Spirit of God sanctifies us and brings us through trials...but is the personal element of truth the ONLY thing there is? No. God is objectively real, no matter our experience of Him. God's logic rules the universe objectively, no matter how irrational we may get.


I would just challenge you that when you say something
like "the only thing we know is that we cant know anything", this is self-refuting. If you can't know anything for sure, how can you know that the statement itself is true for sure?

 

[Sola_Fide]

And talking louder doesn't make people sound smarter.

True. I hate loud talkers.

 

[Sola_Fide]

BuddyRey,

Here is how Augustine dealt with the skeptics of his day (people who said we can't know truth). I describe it in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-an-ism-to-end-all-isms&p=3748427#post3748427

He was pretty brilliant.

Truth, he argued, must exist; thus, skepticism is false.

Even to deny the existence of truth(that is, to say that it is “true” that there is no truth) is to assert that truth does and must exist.

Further, it is not possible for truth to change. That which changes, by definition, cannot be true.

To deny truth’s eternality(i.e., to say that it is “true” that truth is not eternal or that it will someday perish) affirms its eternal nature.

And since truth can exist only in the form of propositions, it must be mental (i.e., being propositional, it can exist only in the mind).

But seeing that the mind of man is not eternal and unchangeable, there must be a mind superior to the mind of man which is eternal and unchangeable: the mind of God. God, as Scripture testifies, is truth itself. And if a man knows any truth, he also knows something of God. also knows something of God.

 

[otherone]

But seeing that the mind of man is not eternal and unchangeable, there must be a mind superior to the mind of man which is eternal and unchangeable: the mind of God.

He was pretty brilliant.

How is unsubstantiated declarations of faith "brilliant"? Deists believe they are "solving for x", but the formula is tossed if the answer doesn't match their presupposition. That's why Faith is not Logic.

 

[Sola_Fide]

How is unsubstantiated declarations of faith "brilliant"? Deists believe they are "solving for x", but the formula is tossed if the answer doesn't match their presupposition. That's why Faith is not Logic.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Read my post again about what Augustine said and you tell me where "faith" is even a part of his argument.

I'll wait for your response.

Edit: Here, I'll post it for you:

Truth, he argued, must exist; thus, skepticism is false.

Even to deny the existence of truth(that is, to say that it is “true” that there is no truth) is to assert that truth does and must exist.

Further, it is not possible for truth to change. That which changes, by definition, cannot be true. To deny truth’s eternality(i.e., to say that it is “true” that truth is not eternal or that it will someday perish) affirms its eternal nature.

And since truth can exist only in the form of propositions, it must be mental (i.e., being propositional, it can exist only in the mind). But seeing that the mind of man is not eternal and unchangeable, there must be a mind superior to the mind of man which is eternal and unchangeable: the mind of God.

God, as Scripture testifies, is truth itself. And if a man knows any truth, he also knows something of God. also knows something of God. also knows something of God. also knows something of God.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Believe me, there are ways to defeat Augustine's argument.

For instance, it does not follow that because an eternal mind of Truth must exist, it has to be the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures. It could be Allah or something like that.

So Augustine didn't necessarily prove Christianity with this argument but what he did do is absolutely defeat any form skepticism. He proved that truth must exist eternally.

 

[AFPVet]

Actually, I think in terms of the meanings of the words, Dawkins is technically an Agnostic. the Prefix "A" means "absence of" or "denial of" a "Theist" is a believer in a god or gods. Thus, an "atheist" is a denier of God or Gods. Meanwhile, a "Gnostic" is a believer in the supernatural which may or may not include a god or gods. Thus, an "Agnostic" is someone who denies all things supernatural, including Gods. A theravada buddhist is therefore an Atheist, but not an Agnostic. Dawkins really is an Agnostic.

I suppose it depends on your definition. For example, Merriam-Webster defines Agnostic as:

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag·nos·ti·cism noun

So using this definition, Agnostics are simply not engaged in whether there is or isn't a God or gods. Therefore, I suppose that you could say Atheists are strong in their non religious or spiritual belief; whereas, Agnostics simply don't care either way.

 

[otherone]

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Read my post again about what Augustine said and you tell me where "faith" is even a part of his argument.

I'll wait for your response.

But seeing that the mind of man is not eternal and unchangeable, there must be a mind superior to the mind of man which is eternal and unchangeable

Augustine enters discourse with an unshakable belief in a creator. Even If he WAS philosophically honest, the boldened text just proves intellectual hubris.
Here's a puzzle for you...prove the infallibility of the Bible without using the Bible in the formula.

 

[Sola_Fide]

But seeing that the mind of man is not eternal and unchangeable, there must be a mind superior to the mind of man which is eternal and unchangeable

Augustine enters discourse with an unshakable belief in a creator. Even If he WAS philosophically honest, the boldened text just proves intellectual hubris.
Here's a puzzle for you...prove the infallibility of the Bible without using the Bible in the formula.

Truths are only propositional (in other words, they are mental, they exist in the mind). Since truth must be eternal, and since the mind of man is not eternal, there must be an eternal Mind of truth. Completely sound.

To deny this conclusion, you have to either prove that

1). that truth is not eternal (which is self-refuting),

or

2). that truth is something other than propositional (not possible). It is completely sound.


Here is a puzzle for you: prove the infallibility of your senses using your senses.

 

[otherone]

Here is a puzzle for you: prove the infallibility of your senses using your senses.

You're begging the question, AB. you wrote:
Without the axiom of Biblical truths, you can't prove anything at all.


My question to you is: Given that biblical truths are axiomatic, prove that they should be assumed without using scriptures in your argument.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You're begging the question, AB. you wrote:
Without the axiom of Biblical truths, you can't prove anything at all.


My question to you is: Given that biblical truths are axiomatic, prove that they should be assumed without using scriptures in your argument.

Given that you think the infallibility of the senses is axiomatic, prove that it should be assumed without using it in your argument.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You're begging the question, AB. you wrote:
Without the axiom of Biblical truths, you can't prove anything at all.


My question to you is: Given that biblical truths are axiomatic, prove that they should be assumed of without using scriptures in your argument.

And of course you are right that all arguments "beg the question" at the fundamental level.

You are right that I assume the Scriptures and their logical implications as axioms of knowledge.

What you don't see yet is that you assume empiricism, the infallibility of the senses, as axiomatic without proof (even in the face of its absurdity).

 

[otherone]

Given that you think the infallibility of the senses is axiomatic, prove that it should be assumed without using it in your argument.

lol. You can't answer the question...that's ok. It stands to reason that one can only prove the bible by quoting the bible.
I've never claimed the 'infallibility of the senses', by the way. I've only ever claimed that Bibliolators can't possess the objective truth.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Otherone,

We can play this epistemic game as long as you want. I WILL show you that you cannot know anything or prove anything given your theory of knowledge.

How do you know the things you know?

 

[otherone]

You are right that I assume the Scriptures and their logical implications as axioms of knowledge.

THANK YOU!
The divinity of the Bible is a matter of FAITH...this makes any logical conclusions derived from Biblical axioms to be matters of Faith, not objective Truths.

 

[Sola_Fide]

THANK YOU!
The divinity of the Bible is a matter of FAITH...this makes any logical conclusions derived from Biblical axioms to be matters of Faith, not objective Truths.

Otherone,

How do we know the things we know?

I'm going to prove that your theory of knowledge is a matter of faith.

 

[AFPVet]

Here's something to think about... what do we actually know? Can we prove anything without a shadow of a doubt? Parenthetically, Gnostic, is derived from Gnosis or "the knowledge of spiritual truth". The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. We base what we know by things which we observe and measure. Things which were once believed to be constants can be manipulated by gravity for example. Our minds are only capable of thinking in limited dimensions.