Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2016, 07:11 AM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(15-06-2016 11:09 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 11:03 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Thank you. I realize that not all theists make this argument explicitly but they do make it implicitly. I suppose I should have said "a big nail in the coffin of pressuppositionalism.

I don't even know what presuppositionalism is, and running out the door, so Googling it will have to wait. (I think someone told me once, but I forget.)

Probably it's a Christian thing.

No, it's a theist thing. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(16-06-2016 07:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 11:09 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I don't even know what presuppositionalism is, and running out the door, so Googling it will have to wait. (I think someone told me once, but I forget.)

Probably it's a Christian thing.

No, it's a theist thing. Drinking Beverage

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

I still don't understand what it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 07:18 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2016 09:10 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
95 % of this universe is Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
Until we know more about this universe, no generalizations can be made about it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 08:01 AM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(16-06-2016 07:16 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 07:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it's a theist thing. Drinking Beverage

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

I still don't understand what it is.

It is the supposition that everyone must assume the existence of God in order to make any sense out of anything, to have logic and abstract principles. Presupositionalists make the claim explicit while all theist make the claim implicitly by claiming that the everything was created by a God. God is supposed to be the ultimate source of everything. Logic is not method of thinking but a reflection of the nature of God. All theists assume it.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
16-06-2016, 09:08 AM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(16-06-2016 08:01 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 07:16 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

I still don't understand what it is.

It is the supposition that everyone must assume the existence of God in order to make any sense out of anything, to have logic and abstract principles. Presupositionalists make the claim explicit while all theist make the claim implicitly by claiming that the everything was created by a God. God is supposed to be the ultimate source of everything. Logic is not method of thinking but a reflection of the nature of God. All theists assume it.

As a theist, I don't assume that anyone needs to believe in G-d in order to live a meaningful and productive life. I've never been taught that a belief in G-d is somehow paramount to one's existence, so it just doesn't make sense that all people must be living irrational, disjointed lives just because they don't think what I think.

I can't understand how logic and nature must come from G-d. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't... but it need not be a given.

Suppose I created a computer program, and the main idea of the program was to instruct the computer to become autonomous. I give it no other instructions other than that and a few tools to achieve the task. Did I really directly create the society of mobile, self-reproducing AI robots that my computer eventually comes up with? Did I really create it's intelligence? If I never touched the computer program again, or only touched it a few more times to add new code to enable it to do even more does my minimal influence really discredit the achievements that my computer accomplished on it's own?

I don't think it does. I don't think this presupposition argument must apply to all theists across the board.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
16-06-2016, 09:15 AM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(16-06-2016 09:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 08:01 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is the supposition that everyone must assume the existence of God in order to make any sense out of anything, to have logic and abstract principles. Presupositionalists make the claim explicit while all theist make the claim implicitly by claiming that the everything was created by a God. God is supposed to be the ultimate source of everything. Logic is not method of thinking but a reflection of the nature of God. All theists assume it.

As a theist, I don't assume that anyone needs to believe in G-d in order to live a meaningful and productive life. I've never been taught that a belief in G-d is somehow paramount to one's existence, so it just doesn't make sense that all people must be living irrational, disjointed lives just because they don't think what I think.

I can't understand how logic and nature must come from G-d. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't... but it need not be a given.

Suppose I created a computer program, and the main idea of the program was to instruct the computer to become autonomous. I give it no other instructions other than that and a few tools to achieve the task. Did I really directly create the society of mobile, self-reproducing AI robots that my computer eventually comes up with? Did I really create it's intelligence? If I never touched the computer program again, or only touched it a few more times to add new code to enable it to do even more does my minimal influence really discredit the achievements that my computer accomplished on it's own?

I don't think it does. I don't think this presupposition argument must apply to all theists across the board.

It doesn't necessarily; my point is that it is not just Christians.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-06-2016, 09:25 AM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(16-06-2016 07:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  95 % of this universe is Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
Until we know more about this universe, no generalizations can be made about it.

Except that it's important.

#DarkEnergyMatters.

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 09:43 AM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(16-06-2016 09:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 08:01 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is the supposition that everyone must assume the existence of God in order to make any sense out of anything, to have logic and abstract principles. Presupositionalists make the claim explicit while all theist make the claim implicitly by claiming that the everything was created by a God. God is supposed to be the ultimate source of everything. Logic is not method of thinking but a reflection of the nature of God. All theists assume it.

As a theist, I don't assume that anyone needs to believe in G-d in order to live a meaningful and productive life. I've never been taught that a belief in G-d is somehow paramount to one's existence, so it just doesn't make sense that all people must be living irrational, disjointed lives just because they don't think what I think.

I can't understand how logic and nature must come from G-d. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't... but it need not be a given.

Suppose I created a computer program, and the main idea of the program was to instruct the computer to become autonomous. I give it no other instructions other than that and a few tools to achieve the task. Did I really directly create the society of mobile, self-reproducing AI robots that my computer eventually comes up with? Did I really create it's intelligence? If I never touched the computer program again, or only touched it a few more times to add new code to enable it to do even more does my minimal influence really discredit the achievements that my computer accomplished on it's own?

I don't think it does. I don't think this presupposition argument must apply to all theists across the board.
Well some Christians do criticize pressupositionalism and they should because it is deeply flawed but then so is theism in general. Lets just say that it applies to all who claim that a god is the source of everything that exists. You are quite unusual in my experience with theists in that you entertain the idea the the universe was not created by a god. As far as your AI example, yes you would be the ultimate creator because the computer and the tools you gave it would not exist without you. But this is not a good example because theists, at least the majority, claim that their god is involved and does interact with it's creation and is the source of everything including consciousness. I think it would be the rare theist who would say that anything exists independently of God.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(16-06-2016 09:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 09:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  As a theist, I don't assume that anyone needs to believe in G-d in order to live a meaningful and productive life. I've never been taught that a belief in G-d is somehow paramount to one's existence, so it just doesn't make sense that all people must be living irrational, disjointed lives just because they don't think what I think.

I can't understand how logic and nature must come from G-d. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't... but it need not be a given.

Suppose I created a computer program, and the main idea of the program was to instruct the computer to become autonomous. I give it no other instructions other than that and a few tools to achieve the task. Did I really directly create the society of mobile, self-reproducing AI robots that my computer eventually comes up with? Did I really create it's intelligence? If I never touched the computer program again, or only touched it a few more times to add new code to enable it to do even more does my minimal influence really discredit the achievements that my computer accomplished on it's own?

I don't think it does. I don't think this presupposition argument must apply to all theists across the board.
Well some Christians do criticize pressupositionalism and they should because it is deeply flawed but then so is theism in general. Lets just say that it applies to all who claim that a god is the source of everything that exists. You are quite unusual in my experience with theists in that you entertain the idea the the universe was not created by a god. As far as your AI example, yes you would be the ultimate creator because the computer and the tools you gave it would not exist without you. But this is not a good example because theists, at least the majority, claim that their god is involved and does interact with it's creation and is the source of everything including consciousness. I think it would be the rare theist who would say that anything exists independently of God.

The rule is that Torah and science must be in concert with one another. If they are not, then we either misunderstood the Torah, or the scientific understanding is wrong.

If the science is not in... (such as was the case when Aristotle said that the universe was static and eternal), then we go by what the Torah says. If the science is in (such as with evolution and the big-bang) and it doesn't agree with what Torah says, then we misunderstood the Torah. We must reinterpret the Torah; we were wrong.

We can be wrong, and that's okay. I can't know if G-d created the universe or not for sure, and the science isn't in on how the big bang happened, so I go by what I understand of my religious teachings. I'm not making a concrete statement about G-d starting the Big Bang, and if such a time comes when the origin of the Big Bang becomes known, I will follow the template put forth by my religion and change my position. It's happened in the past, and my people are just fine with it. We don't dig our heels in the sand and stubbornly refuse to grow... we make every effort to understand in light of new information.

Some people won't like how I handle my religion and my understanding of the world and universe (those people can go fuck themselves, btw). There simply need not be a definitive statement that G-d created morality, logic and nature or that what the Torah says in it's simplest interpretation must be the only way to understand it (that would be an ignorant, small-minded approach).

The name of the game is to learn and grow, and I think that can be done while embracing more than one school of thought to help draw a complete picture. It can also be accomplished while not diminishing another person's way of understanding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 12:42 PM
RE: Demystifying Universality: A big nail in the coffin of Theism
(16-06-2016 10:14 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 09:43 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Well some Christians do criticize pressupositionalism and they should because it is deeply flawed but then so is theism in general. Lets just say that it applies to all who claim that a god is the source of everything that exists. You are quite unusual in my experience with theists in that you entertain the idea the the universe was not created by a god. As far as your AI example, yes you would be the ultimate creator because the computer and the tools you gave it would not exist without you. But this is not a good example because theists, at least the majority, claim that their god is involved and does interact with it's creation and is the source of everything including consciousness. I think it would be the rare theist who would say that anything exists independently of God.

The rule is that Torah and science must be in concert with one another. If they are not, then we either misunderstood the Torah, or the scientific understanding is wrong.

If the science is not in... (such as was the case when Aristotle said that the universe was static and eternal), then we go by what the Torah says. If the science is in (such as with evolution and the big-bang) and it doesn't agree with what Torah says, then we misunderstood the Torah. We must reinterpret the Torah; we were wrong.

We can be wrong, and that's okay. I can't know if G-d created the universe or not for sure, and the science isn't in on how the big bang happened, so I go by what I understand of my religious teachings. I'm not making a concrete statement about G-d starting the Big Bang, and if such a time comes when the origin of the Big Bang becomes known, I will follow the template put forth by my religion and change my position. It's happened in the past, and my people are just fine with it. We don't dig our heels in the sand and stubbornly refuse to grow... we make every effort to understand in light of new information.

Some people won't like how I handle my religion and my understanding of the world and universe (those people can go fuck themselves, btw). There simply need not be a definitive statement that G-d created morality, logic and nature or that what the Torah says in it's simplest interpretation must be the only way to understand it (that would be an ignorant, small-minded approach).

The name of the game is to learn and grow, and I think that can be done while embracing more than one school of thought to help draw a complete picture. It can also be accomplished while not diminishing another person's way of understanding.

Do you feel your way of understanding has been diminished? I would hope that your understanding of universality has grown for my efforts.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: