Underlying Philosophy

PaulK,Before I go into responding to your post, we need to take a few steps back and see why we are unable to understand the opposing person's arguments. You apparently cannot understand my arguments, and this is my fault, as I did not clear some things up earlier.The first thing you must understand is that I do not believe that God handed down directly to Adam and Eve everything there was to know about mathematics and science and other such things. I believe that what He did do though was create them in His own image, and thus, give them the ability to understand the world around them, and reason in a manner that would lead them to correct conclusions (simple things such as, e.g., the tree is hard, therefore if I bang my head against it, that would hurt...). Because Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, so were their descendants. So what I am saying is that God gave to us the ability to reason and make sense of the world around us, and my question to an atheist would be, from where did we get the ability to reason if there is no god to give us this ability?And I made a mistake by using the term "observe/unobservable" in regards to a=a. Perhaps I should have said something more along the lines of this: we cannot reason to come to the conclusion that a=a, so we must therefore accept this to be true. No one that I know of has concluded that 1=2, 2=3 etc. So if anyone can adhere (if they want) to different laws of logic, and they can use these laws to make certain conclusions about what they see, then why has no one yet come to the conclusion that 1=2, and 2=3 (maybe you did not specifically say that some one can use different laws of logic, but if you haven't yet said that, why couldn't someone try using different laws of logic?)? This denotes that a=a is a universal truth, and is not subjective to the varying laws of logic of different ethnic groups. This does not mean that every single person in the world has this picture (a=a) in their mind. That's just the way the Greeks wrote it down (for instance), but ultimately, no one would say, e.g., that one person is equivalent to two people.Here's a random question. If you say that it is best for things to be proven via the scientific method, then the that raises the question: was the scientific method proven correct via the scientific method?And in conclusion, I need to ask a very important question to clear up some more misconceptions between us. Are you neutral in your beliefs, or were you at any point completely neutral in your worldview (pertaining particularly to the question, is there a god?)?
To phrase it more clearly, when it comes to the subject of whether or not there is a god, would you define yourself as neutral, or bias?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Sorry, my mistake.

Once again, we are created in the image of God, and this gives us the ability to reason in the correct way, thus, we will then be able to come to the correct conclusions about the world around us. God did not tell Adam and Eve about rocket science and the theory of relativity, He simply gave them the ability to reason in manner like unto Himself...the point being, if the person I spoke of had evolved in an atheist universe, how would they ever come to conclusions about the world around them?

Let me rephrase the question.
1. - Did you (or anybody on this forum) assume from the outset that there was no god, and then based on that assumption, you interpreted the world around you? or...2. - Did you, from a neutral standpoint, interpret everything you saw around you, and thereby came to the conclusion that a God
was impossible (or inadequate)? Because "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:17). All things were created by Him, and all those things consist in Him alone. This should explain to you how for me it would be impossible for anything to exist independent of God, so how could a truth not be defined by my belief in a Creator of the same? Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Huntard,Certainly not, and in fact, I'm glad you did because you actually answered some of the question I raised. It's a hard pill to swallow, but the fact must be faced that if I were to do anything less than fully adhering to the Bible, I would be committing a flagrant inconsistency with my beliefs. And further, I see nothing circular in saying that God created us in His own image, and that we thereby have the ability to reason in the [i]correct[i/] way. So now, because the scientific method has been as you say "proven", does this mean that we cannot form another model by which to interpret evidence, or has the scientific method set itself up as the authority in that area, despite the fact that the scientific method does not have a truly good way of validating itself. Let me explain this in more detail. You say the scientific method was proven to be correct by experience, i.e., the idea was formed, it worked in several different scenarios, and it thereby worked itself into becoming a sort of "scientific law". But this process follows the scientific method itself. In other words, the scientific method validates itself by following its own rules. This is like a schoolyard bully, who can only win games by playing by his own rules.None of this is to say that I discard the scientific method as trash. However, I do believe that it should not be set up as the absolute authority in determining truth. Does this mean that from the outset you were neither an atheist nor a theist?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

First of all, I would like you to cite passage of scripture that support these statements. I am certainly not denying that they are in the Bible, but I would like to ensure that you know what you're talking about.To answer the question, in short, you have to understand the covenants of God with man before you can understand the laws of Israel. If you would like for me to explain this in further detail, I can. There are several arguments I can raise here. Atheists often say that they do not believe that there is no god, but rather they lack a belief in god. They say that they simply find a belief in god inadequate to describe the world around us. My primary argument here is that atheism itself is highly inadequate to describe the world around us.Another argument that can be raised, is that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can truly verify the existence of anything. The existence of the universe cannot verify the existence of the universe. But if this universe was created by and eternal, Supreme being, we do have an explanation for the existence of all things. Does God verify Himself then? The answer here is difficult, because as I have said before, it is difficult to describe God with one of the cognitive faculties He has given us (reasoning). But ultimately, something that is eternal cannot verify itself in the sense that we think of it, because it has no beginning or end. This concept (of no beginning or end) is very hard for humans to understand, since we are mortal, so understanding God himself is, in a way, impossible. To make the point, God can be eternal, but matter cannot. Something must be eternal for all things to exist (if there is not something that is eternal, how did anything come to be?...did "something" come from "nothing"?). Once again, I see no alternative but the Bible. And further, once you come to a true understanding of the Bible, God can continue to verify himself in your life over and over again. This does not serve to convert us however (not necessarily, but it could), but to strengthen our conversion. Since you do not believe, you have not seen the working of God that I have seen, and this (the things which I have seen) are one of the biggest verifications of my faith in Christ (and this is quite far from a blind faith). And I would further argue that you yourself do depend on a god (for if you didn't, how would you know anything), but verbally, you deny it. It isn't that God is hiding from you, your just ignoring his presence.As to your history of your religious beliefs, you didn't quite answer the question (I should have worded it differently). Let me rephrase the question.When you were coming to the conclusion you were in the latter half of your history, were you making these conclusion from the stand point that (a) - there is a god (b) - there is no god (c) - neutral?I will respond to the scientific method discussion later.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

There are a number of responses to this objection (that it was wrong for the Israelites to stone rebellious children and to kill people that work on the Sabbath).The one I will focus on requires some in depth explanation of the covenants of God with man, along with some explanation of the Law.There are certain laws and morals in this universe. These are not random products of evolution or of human reasoning, but entities established by God. Jehovah being a merciful God, He made known to us these laws, whether it be by way of conscience, or ordinance.The first time for God to make known his laws to man via ordinance, was when he led the Israelites out of Egypt. He then told Moses his laws and ordinances that were to be established as a part of the "government" of the Israelites. Note that I said that these laws were established as a part of the "government" of the Israelites. This means that certain punishments were prescribed for certain wrongdoings (just like we do today). Everyone knew the punishments that were laid out by God for sins, so in this way, they had an advantage over us Gentiles, (see Romans 3:1-2).So the Israelites lived by the Law. This however does not mean that they were saved by the Law. The Law served to condemn their sins, much like our conscience condemns us. How were they saved? By faith (Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:28)).So having covered the Israelites, I have to talk about us as Gentiles (non-Israelites). We are saved in the same way as Israelites are (by faith). As Romans 3:30 says "since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith". What is the difference between Jews and Gentiles? Gentiles are condemned by their conscience, rather than by the Law (Romans 2:14).So, since Gentiles are not governed by the Law in the way that the Israelites are, they are likewise not condemned in the way that the Israelites are (e.g., being stoned). This does not mean that Gentiles are free from punishment. Gentiles are punished by their conscience. This verse explains it beautifully: "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law" Romans 2:12. Those who sin without the law (Gentiles) will likewise perish without the law. With the Jews however, because they sin under the law, they perish or are punished according to the law.So the reason why I wouldn't stone my rebellious children is because the Bible commands it. Should the Jews have stoned their rebellious children? Yes, because it was commanded by God. Does this seem cruel? No, because the Law clearly laid out the punishment for rebellion. So a rebellious child knew what their punishment was. Israelite children would even have an advantage (in a sense) over us, because they would know what a terrible punishment was laid out for stoning, and would thereby refrain from being rebellious.So to sum it up in short form,1. - Jews live by the Law, and are thus punished by the Law.2. - Gentiles live without the Law, and are thus punished without the Law.The covenants I spoke of are basically as follows: God's covenant with the Israelites - which was one in which God laid out his ordinances - and God's covenant with the Church - which is one in which salvation by faith is the focus. Wouldn't you agree that there are extreme philosophical implications if there is no god? There are plenty of implications if there is a god, so likewise, there are plenty of implications if there is no god. In your universe, there is no god...correct? Despite what a particular human may believe, there either is a god, or there isn't...right? You only say that you do not hold the belief that there is a god. You do not interpret your universe based on the belief that there is a god. So you and me are interpreting the universe in entirely different ways. I interpret based on the Bible, while you interpret it based on the belief that...I would say, but no one besides RAZD has told me what belief(s) dictate how they interpret the universe (please tell me what your belief(s) are). But the point being this: whatever it is you interpret the universe by, it isn't the Bible. So you and me have different starting points, resulting in different conclusions. To sum it up, you don't interpret the universe based on a god, which by definition says that you interpret the universe with NO god. Do you see the implications here? If there is no god, then there is no afterlife (this is for the simple reason that without a supernatural god, how can something supernatural like this happen?). This means that there is no true, lasting reward for anything we do. So why should we do anything, if it has no merit? The implications would continue to pile up.

Another question is raised. If something nice is done for the sake of being nice, is the recipient of the benevolence receiving a lasting gift?...The point of my question is this: what is the only lasting gift (this is a better word than reward) we can receive? Is any gift we receive on this earth going to last forever? Once we have died, all of our earthly gifts and our benevolent acts will pass away. If there is no god, then that is all there is to it, and there is no good reason to do benevolent things. If you want to be nice for the sake of being nice, that is perfectly fine with me. But you would be perfectly justified in doing nothing...from your point of view, you will be neither condemned or rewarded for anything you do, so you would be justified in living 100%, completely for yourself and your pleasure.I do not require that a true, lasting reward be bestowed on me for me to do any "good" things. The question is, do you? If you don't require this, then what reason do you have for being "nice"? Once again, the point is not that you shouldn't be nice, but that one who holds your views would be justified in not being nice.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Dr. Adequate,If I did not iterate this clearly enough, I will do it again: I said nothing about the validity or invalidity of the scientific method, but merely questioned your claims that it is valid. In your universe, what says we should rely on the scientific method, and why should we trust the scientific method?And let me just throw in one major problem with the scientific method: it is subject to the fallacious opinions of mortal man. This is undeniable. The scientific method is not 100% objective, but rather, it is quite subjective.

You also said: You say you are neutral, and yet you refuse to take him into account when making decisions. This is extremely biased. It wouldn't necessarily bother me if you were biased and would admit it, but what does bother me is that you claim to be neutral, and yet you do not take God into account when making decisions. This is absolutely not neutral.And just to prevent an objection, I am not neutral either. I certainly do have my bias's. My claim is that neutrality is impossible. As I have said before, there are only two choices when making decisions: either you take a god into account, or you don't take a god into account. You have chosen the latter, which is the negative side of the question. Refusing to take a god into account is not neutral, because how could you go further in the negative direction? Not taking a god into account is the furthest you can go in the negative direction, while taking a god into account is the furthest in the positive direction. There is no middle ground here.If you ever make a decision or conclusion about anything, you will always either take a god into account, or you won't. To use your example, you either take Santa Claus into account, or you don't.To prevent an objection, if someone claims to have never thought about Santa Claus, they are indeed biased against Santa Claus, because although they don't necessarily notice that they aren't taking Santa Claus into account, they still aren't taking him into account, which is the same thing that the person who has thought about Santa Claus and has decided to not believe in Santa Claus would do. So the person who hasn't though about Santa Claus is just as far in the negative direction as someone who has thought about Santa Claus and decided not to take him into account.Conclusion - to not take a god into account is as far in the negative direction as is possible. Romans 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."Did I say we make void the Law? Indeed not, because this would contradict the statements of Jesus himself. What did I say? I merely said we do not live under the Law, in that we are not punished in the way that the Law dictates. Indeed, we still follow the dos and don't s of the Law, just not the specific punishments for them, because we do not live by the Law. Just as Paul said, we do not make void the Law, but rather establish it in our lives, because the Law is the commandments of God himself, so why shouldn't we want to follow them? Yet again you have a presupposition; that evidence must be gathered for everything in order for it to be verified. As I have said before, I do not discount evidence, but I merely point out your inconsistency of saying that you are neutral, and yet you have a biased presupposition: that evidence determines truth. You will then continue to respond "so you're one of those fool Christians that denounces evidence". I do not discount evidence, but I discount your biased presupposition, not because I am opposed to bias, but because or your claim that you are neutral, and yet you have biased presuppositions. I see. But from your previous statements, it would seem that you do have a sort of "book" by which you interpret the universe: the "Holy Book of Empirical Data". Ah, but this is impossible. Conclusions - however simple they may be - invariably precede evidence, in realms of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics etc. Take, for example, something incredibly simple: a young child may jump in the water off of the diving board, and trust their parent or whoever it may be that they will float back to the top and be okay. They have no real "evidence" for this, so they must first jump in. At this point, once they have jumped in the water, they now have proof that there is nothing to be scared of, and they will proceed to jump into the water without being the least bit scared. This may not be the best example, merely because it is not as fundamental as other assumptions we have made, but it displays the concept of "assumption before concrete evidence". The only point of this example being this: you have made conclusions before you have really good evidence to prove those conclusions, all though you may claim the contrary. Note that I did not capitalize "god" in my statement. There is a difference between "God" and "a god". But is there any hope whatsoever that this "merit" will last? You can do things to make society better if you wish, but you would be justified in hurting society as much as you wanted to. If there can be no hope that anything will last indefinitely, then why do anything? The point is this: why do you punish those who hurt society, if your worldview justifies the actions of the same?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Stile, So suppose living 100% completely for yourself and your own pleasure involved hurting others? Would you then be justified in committing crimes? If so, is justice really establishing justice when those who are being punished by authority of justice are justified in doing the very things they are being judged for doing?I have a good reason for being "nice", and a good reason for judging those who do wrong. I won't go into detail to explain my reason, seeing as how I have explained it earlier.

Indeed, I am reasoning with you using logic. I have not said that no one can use logic, but I have merely pointed out the impossibility of an atheist using logic, which they must of course use if I am to be able to communicate with them.To answer the rest of the question, it must be pointed out that there is a difference between the scientific method and logic. The scientific method is a method formed by man by which theories can be tested in order to determine whether or not they be true. The problem with the scientific method is that the biases of a man can change what that man will decide about a given theory. If scientists are biased towards a particular theory, they may be more likely to accept that theory as scientific law than they would another theory. In other words, although the rules of the scientific method may not necessarily be broken (in this particular case), the theory determined by the scientists to be correct may not necessarily be the correct one, because they were biased, whereas logic, if used in a perfectly sound and inerrant way, will come to the correct conclusions, but only if there are absolutely no contradictions within the person's logic.If you didn't get this, let me outline it more clearly.1. - When talking about the scientific method, an incorrect conclusion can be made even if the rules of the scientific method were not specifically broken.2. - With logic, if the rules are followed perfectly (which isn't necessarily easy, and this is where the subjectivity lies), a logically sound conclusion can be made.

And what is it that says that a laboratory will invariably come to correct conclusions? But how is this reality determined? Science?...

Certainly. So I'll then ask: what are your premises?And when I say you can't use logic, what I mean is this: if you were to strictly follow your worldview, you would be unable to account for the laws of logic and would thus have no reason for relying on them. I hold that when you use logic and reasoning, and follow particular morals, that you are borrowing from my worldview, which explains our ability to reason, and also why there is good and evil. I do not understand where good and evil could come from if there is no supernatural being.

Point out if I'm wrong, but it looked like you just said you are neutral, but then immediately following your statement of "I say it is [neutral]", you go on to say that real neutrality is impossible.And to respond to all of your bigfoot and Santa Claus metaphors (and to give them this label is too much, as they are all absolutely incomparable to God. Let's please not go about comparing figments of man's imagination to God), if you don't take bigfoot into account, you are indeed biased. As I have pointed out earlier, to not take a being into account is as far in the negative direction as one can go...how can you go further in the negative direction? If you were to take a being into account, this would be as far in the positive direction as is possible. Conversely, to not take a being into account is as far in the negative direction as is possibly attainable, for the simple reason that you can't go any farther in the negative direction. So to be neutral is to accept things that are well established? So am I neutral in assuming that I will always have a strong attraction to the ground (gravity)? The definition of neutral is: not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy. If I were to insist to you that I have no attraction to the earth, and you were to insist that I am attracted to the earth, you are, by definition, taking a side; the side that the force of gravity exists. So you are therefore, by definition, not neutral with regards to the gravity controversy.Curiously, this case involves two sides: one who believes in the existence of something (gravity, caused perhaps by a dynamo), and one who does not accept a belief in something (gravity). You do not accept the belief in a god, and you say this is neutral. And yet you would say that one who does not accept the belief in gravity is not neutral, for the simple reason that there is compelling evidence for the existence of gravity (or at least a cause of gravity...). So since when does the presence of evidence for or against a belief define whether one of a negative viewpoint with regards to that belief is neutral?So what is going on here is this: you insist that you are neutral in your beliefs, but anyone who follows your lead in being "neutral", and as a result rejects all beliefs (such as the belief in gravity), is not neutral in your view. So now you get to define who is and isn't neutral. If you interpret the evidence as supporting a particular position, then that position is the neutral one, but any other view is, as defined by you, not neutral. Sounds just a wee bit arbitrary. Please tell me how you could go further in the negative direction. [qs]it [s]hould all depend on evidence.[/qs]Please elaborate a little further on this view, i.e., is evidence your supreme authority with regards to all things? Just so you will be able to better understand everything else I'm saying about negative and positive views in this message, I'll clear this up. When I say negative view, I mean the belief that holds for the absence or non-existence of something, e.g., with regards to a worldwide flood, an evolutionist would be negative and a creationist would be positive, while with regards to a big bang, an evolutionist would be positive, and a creationist would be negative. Once again, the stoning is the punishment of the law, which I do not follow, simply because the Bible says that I am condemned by my conscience. But certainly I would not be a rebellious child, because obviously the Bible says that this is not a good thing. Once again, I am not attempting to undermine empirical evidence. My point is simple: what is it that has made you assert that evidence will yield correct things? How do know that we are really seeing what we are seeing etc.? How do you know anything? If I were an atheist, I honestly wouldn't know what to rely on, because I would have no source for ultimate truth. It may seem as though evidence yields correct things, but can you really know this? Why should we await evidence to see what we should do? This question is directed to you as an atheist. My answer should be obvious. So what is your answer? Do you have any really good reason for relying on evidence? Isn't it possible that it is a bunch of gobbledygook? To say that science is based on no fundamental assumptions is like saying that when one reads a book, they read it with no fundamental assumptions (they would assume, for instance, that the language within the book can convey a certain meaning to them, and that that meaning will also be conveyed to others who read the book, or they might assume that the book has words in it, rather than a bomb...). Science is based on some very fundamental (and obvious) assumptions. For example: laws that have been observed to be true will remain true, and will not change. When was the last time you saw a scientist say there might be a place where energy was actually converting itself into a more efficient form of energy? The second law of thermodynamics is a rather fundamental assumption, one that without which science would become virtually impossible.The definition of science is: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. This presumes that through observation and experimentation of the world around us, certain knowledge can be obtained, and that that knowledge gained will hold true for all others within the material world. There are many more fundamental assumptions in science.And just another problem here: according to the definition of science, science does not account for abstract entities (i.e., non-material entities), such as morals, laws of logic, etc. Just as science cannot explain morals, and doesn't (by definition) attempt to do the same, science can also not explain God, nor should it attempt to. The very definition of science says that the knowledge gained is of relation to the material world, not abstract entities such as morals and laws of logic.So here is an application: prove to me scientifically that I should not look up where you live and come and kill you. Until you can, there seems to be no good reason (that is, if we adhere to your worldview) for me to not do so. So what would your reply be if I asked "would it be okay for me to live 100%, completely for my pleasure?".If living for my pleasure somehow involves hurting society, then I would say this justifies hurting society (from your worldview that is).Once again, why should one not hurt society? Since when does it matter that you say people shouldn't be hurt? Why does it bother you for people to be hurt?...maybe there's a reason to all this.And to respond to a previous objection about an afterlife, my point is just that you worldview does not provide an afterlife. And besides, from your "scientific" viewpoint, wouldn't it be a supernatural occurrence for a person to exist somewhere other than this material world? This, of course, would require a supernatural being.One final question. Does your worldview specifically require that I, in my lifetime, do something to help society?