Alpha Atheist Turns "Agnostic"!

[Sola_Fide]

How do you know I stopped responding to you in this thread?

How do you know you stopped responding to me in this thread?

I would like a non-circular argument that doesn't use your senses to prove your senses, please.


Thanks

 

[lilymc]

Ok, I stopped reading this thread on page 6, because I was getting frustrated with a few people.

Aqua was TRYING to discuss the nature of truth and how we know things...He wasn't even NEAR proclaiming the bible or Christianity yet, but every time he said something, otherone wasn't listening and instead kept saying things like "How does prove the bible?" or "How does that prove the christian God?"

People! One step at a time!! He wasn't trying to prove the bible or Jesus yet, he was simply trying to make a point about the nature of truth itself, and knowledge, from a logical perspective.

This is the problem with debating certain atheists. They have such a knee-jerk animosity towards religion in general, that with some you can't even discuss things like truth from a purely logical or philosophical standpoint. Some here weren't even grasping what Aqua was trying to say, they just heard the word "biblical" and immediately shut down from there. lol! Listen! Open your ears and eyes!

Thank you. Carry on.

 

[otherone]

Thank you. Carry on.

AquaBuddha wrote:

How do we know the things we know?
I'm going to prove that your theory of knowledge is a matter of faith.

I've already agreed with him.....my theory of knowledge is a matter of faith. I've only ever maintained that Religion is a matter of faith....I'm not hostile to religion AT ALL. I LIKE religion....Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Mithrasism, Christianity...it's all good. If you folks have a need to prove through deductive reason the divinity of the Bible, go for it! You don't need me to accomplish this!

 

[Sola_Fide]

AquaBuddha wrote:


I've already agreed with him.....my theory of knowledge is a matter of faith. I've only ever maintained that Religion is a matter of faith....I'm not hostile to religion AT ALL. I LIKE religion....Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Mithrasism, Christianity...it's all good. If you folks have a need to prove through deductive reason the divinity of the Bible, go for it! You don't need me to accomplish this!

Okay. We have that established (again). The problem with the leap of faith you take into empiricism is that it is a leap that takes you into a theory of knowledge that undermines any ability to know anything.

Alright. Alright.

So now we have come to the point where we both understand that we assume certain things in order to have knowledge in the first place. I assume that (by faith) Biblical truths are the axioms of knowledge, and you assume (by faith) that sensation (or experience) is the axiom of knowledge.

My severe challenge to you (like I said earlier in this thread) is that given your theory of knowledge, you can't prove anything at all.

Because you rely on experience, you incorporate induction into your argumentation. Induction is fallacious reasoning. It is never sound and because you use it, you can never bring down conclusions that follow from the premises. It is a fundamental error.

Scripturalism uses deductive reasoning, so it does not suffer from the flaws of empirical worldviews.

On this point alone, you have lost the debate against me.

Do I need to explain induction to you?

We can get in to the logical problems of induction. We can get in to the logical problems with science. We can get in to all kinds of things. We haven't even scratched the surface really.

 

[lilymc]

AquaBuddha wrote:


I've already agreed with him.....my theory of knowledge is a matter of faith. I've only ever maintained that Religion is a matter of faith....

Aqua can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I read, he wasn't arguing that belief in the scriptures or any particular religion isn't a matter of faith. What he WAS saying is that we can know that universal truth itself exists, eternally, apart from man... as you can see in the following post... I'm going to bold the pertinent part:

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.

So, he wasn't talking about "religion" - which was was you were so focused on, he was talking about an eternal Truth (which is one way of describing God.)

I'm not hostile to religion AT ALL. I LIKE religion....Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Mithrasism, Christianity...it's all good. If you folks have a need to prove through deductive reason the divinity of the Bible, go for it! You don't need me to accomplish this!

Well, you called him a troll on the first page. You seem to not have a problem with religion in general, as much as you do with Christianity in particular... perhaps because Christianity makes exclusive claims that other religions don't make? Such as, there aren't "multiple truths" - truth is far more narrow than that.

 

[otherone]

We haven't even SCRATCHED THE SURFACE in describing the inadequacy of empiricism.

Mazel tov!
Make sure you include why the governing principle of your deduction is an unquestionable fact!

 

[Sola_Fide]

Aqua can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I read, he wasn't arguing that belief in the scriptures or any particular religion isn't a matter of faith. What he WAS saying is that we can know that universal truth itself exists, eternally, apart from man... as you can see in the following post... I'm going to bold the pertinent part:




So, he wasn't talking about "religion" - which was was you were so focused on, he was talking about an eternal Truth (which is one way of describing God.)



Well, you called him a troll on the first page. You seem to not have a problem with religion in general, as much as you do with Christianity in particular... perhaps because Christianity makes exclusive claims that other religions don't make? Such as, there aren't "multiple truths" - truth is far more narrow than that.

Yeah, I mean I'm not sensitive about what people call me on the internet. I look at us as all friends who agree on some things and disagree on others. No big deal. In fact, I always gravitate toward people who disagree with me. I know...its strange.

But what Augustine did in his day is something that this post-modern American society needs more than most things right now. Augustine set out to logically prove Christianity. He didn't necessarily do that. But what Augustine did do is absolutely refute the idea that there was no such thing as eternal truth.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Mazel tov!
Make sure you include why the governing principle of your deduction is an unquestionable fact!

It is unquestionable because universal propositions cannot ever be validly obtained by observations. You cannot ever derive a general law from particular instances. This is the fallacy of induction.

 

[otherone]

he wasn't talking about "religion" - which was was you were so focused on, he was talking about an eternal Truth.

.

Actually, his premise was....
AquaBuddha wrote:

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

lilymc wrote:

Well, you called him a troll on the first page. You seem to not have a problem with religion in general, as much as you do with Christianity in particular.

Christianity had nothing to do with it...
AquaBuddha wrote:

Atheists worship their own mind, they serve it no matter how irrational and immoral they become

I find this comment to be offensive, and flame-bait, whether made by a Christian, Sikh, or Snake-Handler....hence the 'troll' comment.

 

[otherone]

It is unquestionable because universal propositions cannot ever be validly obtained by observations. You cannot ever derive a general law from particular instances.

So where is the 'general law' derived from? The absence of observational evidence? Doesn't one have to accept the idea of universal truth outside man for this deduction to work? Isn't the acceptance of your theory experiential unto itself?

 

[lilymc]

.

AquaBuddha wrote:

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

AquaBuddha wrote:

Atheists worship their own mind, they serve it no matter how irrational and immoral they become

I find this comment to be offensive, and flame-bait, whether made by a Christian, Sikh, or Snake-Handler....hence the 'troll' comment.

I had a feeling you were going to respond with those points. Yes, I agree his first statement should've been worded differently, because it was WAY too easy to misunderstand.

But I think you and a few other atheists were focusing too much on the messenger (the bible) rather than the message itself. He was saying that certain claims (about truth being eternal, etc) must be in place before anything can be proven. Those claims about the nature of truth are made in the bible. I'm not explaining this well at all, so I'll let him reply to it.

But I think what he is referring to is something that C.S Lewis also asserted. Here's the quote by Lewis:

"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved."

As for his comment about atheists - I can see how it could be offensive. But I don't agree he's a troll, I think he was stating something that he truly believes, not necessarily to piss people off, but maybe just to try to make people see things in a different way?

Yeah, I mean I'm not sensitive about what people call me on the internet. I look at us as all friends who agree on some things and disagree on others. No big deal. In fact, I always gravitate toward people who disagree with me. I know...its strange.

But what Augustine did in his day is something that this post-modern American society needs more than most things right now. Augustine set out to logically prove Christianity. He didn't necessarily do that. But what Augustine did do is absolutely refute the idea that there was no such thing as eternal truth.

It's not strange. I like to debate too, so I also end up gravitating towards discussions with atheists or others who I disagree with.

What I have noticed a lot is that many atheists can't sit still to debate what comes first - establishing that absolute truth exists. Or that things like logic exist, apart from man - which proves that something can be real, objective and universal - yet completely immaterial. (sound familiar?)

They always want to jump ahead and say things like, "You have no proof for the bible!" or "How do you know your god is the right one?" When we haven't even gotten NEAR Christianity yet - we're still trying to get people to see that absolute truth exists.

 

[otherone]

He was saying that certain claims (about truth being eternal, etc) must be in place before anything can be proven.

I WISH! That was MY point. Every argument begins with assumptions. All I've ever said is that his 'claims' were based on FAITH. This isn't a theology debate, it's a philosophy debate. He's a Rationalist, I'm an Idealist. Never the twain shall meet.

I think he was stating something that he truly believes, not necessarily to piss people off, but maybe just to try to make people see things in a different way?

.

He was looking for a reaction,

 

[lilymc]

I WISH! That was MY point. Every argument begins with assumptions. All I've ever said is that his 'claims' were based on FAITH. This isn't a theology debate, it's a philosophy debate. He's a Rationalist, I'm an Idealist. Never the twain shall meet.

No, that's a misunderstanding. I think he should reply to you, because I don't want to speak for him, but this is what he said:

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

I don't think he was saying that we can't know ANYTHING for sure. (Again, he can correct me if I'm wrong.) If you take out the word "biblical" and instead use a different word, such as "a priori" or "self-evident" then he's saying the same thing that CS Lewis said. And that other believers have said. And it's something that many atheists don't realize... They always try to say that science, or our physical senses, are the only way to determine truth. But what they don't realize is that you can't even begin the scientific method without certain philosophical truths being in place first. And those are truths that science cannot prove, they are self-evident, or a priori truths.

We can know that absolute truth exists. It doesn't have to be a matter of "faith." Because to deny it is illogical. And atheists who deny absolute truth have no leg to stand on when they make a truth claim, such as "god does not exist." If absolute truth doesn't exist, then their own statement (which is asserted as an absolute truth) cannot be true.

He was looking for a reaction,

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[AFPVet]

I don't think he was saying that we can't know ANYTHING for sure. (Again, he can correct me if I'm wrong.) If you take out the word "biblical" and instead use a different word, such as "a priori" or "self-evident" then he's saying the same thing that CS Lewis said. And that other believers have said. And it's something that many atheists don't realize... They always try to say that science, or our physical senses, are the only way to determine truth. But what they don't realize is that you can't even begin the scientific method without certain philosophical truths being in place first. And those are truths that science cannot prove, they are self-evident, or a priori truths.

We can know that absolute truth exists. It doesn't have to be a matter of "faith." Because to deny it is illogical. And atheists who deny absolute truth have no leg to stand on when they make a truth claim, such as "god does not exist." If absolute truth doesn't exist, then their own statement (which is asserted as an absolute truth) cannot be true.



Maybe, maybe not.

Very interesting and well said

 

[otherone]

If you take out the word "biblical" and instead use a different word, such as "a priori" or "self-evident" then he's saying the same thing that CS Lewis said. And that other believers have said.

a priori...granted
self-evident...granted
biblical...faith
How can truth be universal if it is dependent on biblical axioms? What do you claim is 'a priori'? Like I've said, arguments are based on 'assumptions'. These may be shared assumptions (as in science), but not universal. The freezing point of water is a shared assumption based on environmental criteria. It is not an 'absolute truth'.

We can know that absolute truth exists. It doesn't have to be a matter of "faith." Because to deny it is illogical.

Huh? Is this where the St. Augustus comes in again? Like I said, I'm an Idealist....

And atheists who deny absolute truth have no leg to stand on when they make a truth claim, such as "god does not exist." If absolute truth doesn't exist, then their own statement (which is asserted as an absolute truth) cannot be true.

Yeah....that whole 'no god' thing is pretty much an opinion (Idealism again). Although I'm getting confused over what constitutes "Absolute Truth" and what is simply....reality.

 

[germanyt]

Is this a serious thread? OP, do you not understand the difference between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist? Or a gnostic/agnostic theist?


LOL at you thinking that if Richard Dawkins turned Christian it would destroy atheism.

 

[HigherVision]

Here's something to think about... what do we actually know? Can we prove anything without a shadow of a doubt?

Yes, plenty. For example the notion that there was, at one time, a talking snake that tricked the first man and woman into eating a devil apple. That can be definitively proven not to be true, and thus the book that that story came from proven untrue. And you don't even have to include the much broader question 'does god exist?' in the equation.

 

[AFPVet]

Yes, plenty. For example the notion that there was, at one time, a talking snake that tricked the first man and woman into eating a devil apple. That can be definitively proven not to be true, and thus the book that that story came from proven untrue. And you don't even have to include the much broader question 'does god exist?' in the equation.

How can it be proven when we don't even understand the context? Was it truly a talking snake? Or was it metaphorical? We don't know anything. Further, even if it were literal, how do we know that it was a terrestrial creature for sure?