Agnostic RETHINKS His Doubts as Christian Makes Bold Claims

Рет қаралды 316

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 54

@tgrogan6049 Ай бұрын

"In such a way, this interrogative style of apologetics is intended to get the heat off the believer and his task of providing reasons for believing what he claims while trying to undermine the non-believer's confidence in reason and his own mind (ironically characterized as a fault-ridden faculty which was allegedly created by a perfect creator). Since the apologist likely knows deep down that his god-belief claims have no rational defense, his concern is to hide them behind a blanket of challenges posed to those who have not surrendered their minds in similar fashion, not because their philosophical orientation is truly faulty, but because they are perceived to be a threat. All the while, the apologist seems completely oblivious to the need to provide a reason for believing the claims he apparently wants us to accept." From Incinerating Presuppositionalism Blogspot

@russellsteapot8779 Ай бұрын

//"There's a God worldview and a not-God worldview."// This is a false dichotomy, as there are MANY "worldviews" that affirm the existence of a God or gods, there are MANY "worldviews" that deny the existence of a God or gods, and there are MANY "worldviews" that NEITHER affirm NOR deny the existence of a God or gods. Presenting it as an 'either/or' disjunction is a mistake, especially since "worldview" - which is a rather vague concept - is presented here as a set of *beliefs* . For any proposition that you understand within that set, you can believe that it's true or likely true (1), believe that it's false or likely false (2), or believe neither (3). These *THREE* options are the cognitive doxastic attitudes, but if you don't understand it, you may even hold to a noncognitivist stance (4), and reject the statement as 'meaningless' (or non-truth-apt). With this, you'd be 'innocent' to the proposition, and cannot even form a cognitive belief about it. It's fine to say that a *specific* God either exists or does NOT exist (in reality), which would be dichotomous, but the 'doxastic attitudes' offer a trichotomy at minimum.

@TheThinkInstitute Ай бұрын

Interesting perspective, but there is no neutrality toward God. To feign or adopt agnosticism is to reject the proposition that God has given sufficient evidence for one to know Him, which is what the biblical worldview teaches. There remains two perspectives: God vs. not-God. Join the livestream tonight and defend your position!

@russellsteapot8779 Ай бұрын

@@TheThinkInstitute Lol. I HAVE offered a defence for the view that you are committing the fallacy of *false dichotomy* . That is, I've explained WHY! Your response seems to simply state the same *false dichotomy* AGAIN, and then, rather curiously, request the very thing I've ALREADY provided! Asking for something you already have is what you did on the other comment, so if your "worldview" makes you vulnerable to these kinds of habitual errors, it might be worth thinking about why that might be happening?!

@rolandwatts3218 Ай бұрын

@@TheThinkInstitute Actually there are a whole lot of perspectives within theism. For example:- The Calvinist God exists and evolution happens and the GOP is the party of God and ... The Calvinist God exists and evolution does not happen and both the GOP and the Dems are not the parties of God and ... The Arminian God exists and evolution happens and space aliens exist and the GOP is not the party of God and ... The Hindu God exists and the universe began in a Big Bang and fairies do not exist ... The Hindu God exists and the universe was created and fairies exist and ... Lots of gods exist but fairies do not exist, and the Dems are the best political party to be in power and we should not be cutting down trees and ... So there must be a whole lot more to "world view" than just "Joel's version of God exists" or it's denial "Joel's version of God does not exist". I reckon if you got every Christian on the planet to discuss theology, science, history, culture, art and so on, with you then you would find that there are a zillion different perspectives very little of which derive from the claim "God exists". How can that be, if "God exists" and "God does not exist" are world views?

@TheThinkInstitute Ай бұрын

@@russellsteapot8779 Respectfully, you don't seem to understand the antithesis I'm describing and re-explaining. I want to help but not in the comments.

@Certaintyexists888 Ай бұрын

@@russellsteapot8779How do you account for your continued reliance on abstractions such as “the classical Laws of Logic”?

@anothercat1300 Ай бұрын

Doubt is a great blessing for those who continue to search for God.

@ajhieb Ай бұрын

8:25 _"How do you see your agnosticism towards God leading you to the conclusion that science is possible?"_ I have to say, your caller was far more charitable than I would have been when you asked that utterly asinine question. Respectfully, lets look at why that question was so profoundly off base. Let's say that I believe that I have a dollar in my pocket. And based on that belief, I conclude that I can walk into the gas station and get a cup of coffee. You come to me and tell me that you _don't_ believe that you have a dollar in your pocket. But you also happen to believe (based on having a coupon, having a credit card, knowing the owner, or any number of other reasons) that _you_ can walk into the gas station and get a cup of coffee. How much sense does it make for me to demand that you explain your belief that you can get a cup of coffee, exclusively in terms of your _disbelief_ that you have a dollar in your pocket? Respectfully, It doesn't make ANY sense at all, but that's exactly what you (and countless other presup apologists) are trying to do with questions like the one above. Respectfully, if you'd like to learn a little about logic and the philosophy of logic, go watch some of the videos where PhD logician Alex Malpass engages with Presup Apologist Matt Slick, who makes the exact same mistake you made above.

@Certaintyexists888 Ай бұрын

His worldview is that God is the necessary precondition for science and the philosophical assumptions that science relies on.

@ajhieb Ай бұрын

@@Certaintyexists888 Decalring that by fiat gets you nowhere. And nothing you said there addresses anything I wrote above.

@timcollett99 Ай бұрын

@@Certaintyexists888 If you think that needs to be explained, then you are out of your depth.

@russellsteapot8779 Ай бұрын

@@Certaintyexists888 //"His worldview is that God is the necessary precondition for science and the philosophical assumptions that science relies on.'// There's a penny that's not dropping. Having a BELIEF (ie - an idea in your head) that the Earth is flat, 6000 years old, and was poofed out of nothing in a week by an immaterial supermind, does not MEAN that these beliefs ARE THE CASE IN REALITY when it comes to the shape, age and formation of the planet! That - in a rather literal sense - may be a "worldview", and other people that share this BELIEF may get together, form a club, and pat each other on the back for echoing the same stuff. They may make all kinds of claims, but to be taken seriously by anyone who does NOT share those BELIEFS, there needs to be a bit more than "I believe these things because that's my "worldview", and an extra belief in my "worldview" is that my "worldview" is necessarily true, and cannot possibly be false!" Without any support, it's a trivial claim of "I believe X, because I believe X", which is an unsupported, 'mere' belief.

@ajhieb Ай бұрын

10:12 _"If God is not there, what reason do you have for assuming that the world is even going to exist in the next 5 seconds?"_ That's an interesting question that you CAN NOT _logically_ answer, given your thoedicy for the Problem of Evil. Once you make the leap to some ineffible "morally sufficient motivation" to explain away any phenomenon that you otherwise can't explain/predict via your understanding of God, you've logically given up on _any_ certainty about the future. ANY state of affairs that comes to pass, can be explained by "morally sufficient motivation" Literally NOTHING is incompatible with it. (Which is the _only_ reason it's trotted out as a thodicy in the first place... to explain the inexplicable) You, as a beliver in the Christian God can NEVER know if God has a morally sufficient motivation to anihilate all of creation 5 seconds from now. That's the position you're committed to when you use that theodicy. So now my question is, having already demonstrated that YOU have no _logical_ justification for believing the world will still exist 5 seconds from now, why is it that _atheists_ are expected to have an answer to that question? If not having a _logical_ answer to that question is fatal for a worldview then, respectfully, all you've done is once again demonstrate the absurdity that is the Christian worldview.

@Certaintyexists888 Ай бұрын

The atheist has no justification for presupposing induction as David Hume pointed out.

@ajhieb Ай бұрын

@@Certaintyexists888 "No one -The atheist has no- has justification for presupposing induction as David Hume pointed out." Fixed that for you. Thanks for demonstrating the point i made in the other thread about how philosophically ignorant most presup apologists are. You clearly have no idea what Hume actually said about induction. Perhaps you disagree with Joel regarding his "morally sufficient reason" theodicy regarding the problem of evil, so the critique above doesn't apply to you, but so long as you believe in an all powerful God that sometimes suspends the laws of nature in order to perform miracles, you still effectively have the same problem I outlined above.

@Certaintyexists888 Ай бұрын

@ The believer in Jesus Christ has justification through revelation.

@Certaintyexists888 Ай бұрын

Also, how can you make universal claims from your position? “No one”

@ajhieb Ай бұрын

@@Certaintyexists888 _"Also, how can you make universal claims from your position? “No one”"_ Ask David Hume. He's the guy you tried to misrepresent, that articulated the problem of induction, but my guess is his response would have been "The same way you make universal claims about all other worldviews, totally undercutting your professed "myth of neutrality"." Or if he was feeling less snarky "The Problem of Induction is internal to the concept of induction. It isn't an external problem, therefore it applies to all worldviews that attempt to employ induction." _"@ The believer in Jesus Christ has justification through revelation."_ And I already addressed why that ISN'T the case above.

@rolandwatts3218 Ай бұрын

You know, rather than continually trying to get people onto your live stream, why not get some of your graduates to come here and engage? Or get Sye to come here and engage?

@TheThinkInstitute Ай бұрын

Because YT comments threads are a time-suck that give little benefit, whereas livestreams are more beneficial. See you tonight.

@rolandwatts3218 Ай бұрын

@@TheThinkInstitute If I am available then I will try to hook in.

@answeranyone Ай бұрын

You rang?

@rolandwatts3218 Ай бұрын

@@answeranyone Well yes. If you are interested in any of the topics TTI presents on this channel and my associated comments when I make them, then I'd be happy to discuss these with you.

@TheThinkInstitute Ай бұрын

@answeranyone welcome Brother!

@tgrogan6049 Ай бұрын

Are these guys presuppositionalists?

@nick7977 Ай бұрын

The Christian worldview is an either/or proposition.

@TheThinkInstitute Ай бұрын

Yes it is

@russellsteapot8779 Ай бұрын

@@TheThinkInstitute lol. To invoke the spirit of panto - oh no it isn't! A 'proposition' is what's expressed in a declarative sentence that is either true or false. "Paris is the capital city of France" is a proposition, and it's truth-value is 'true'. "Paris is north of Edinburgh" is a proposition, and its truth-value is 'false'. "Paris" is NOT a proposition. It's a subject with no predicate, so doesn't have any truth-value at all. You need to add something ABOUT Paris (or in your case "The Christian worldview") to turn it into a sentence that is "truth-apt" (ie - something that can actually BE judged as either T or F). If you stick "I wonder if..." in front of the thing you *think* might be a 'proposition', you'll usually find out whether the sentence is (or whether it's not) a proposition.