Human reason

Originally posted by Coletti
[b]man's intellect cannot process the supernatural.

The intellect processes thoughts and emotions. Some of the content of thoughts are knowledge. Example: Christ's died to redeem sinners to his father is a supernatural thought. ...[text shortened]... to God - not because it will save me, but because God commands it.[/b]

thank you for your continual willingness to expound upon your views. my head is altogether teeming with objections. to keep them somewhat organized, i aim to present only my main objections. in particular, in this post my design is to argue for the following: 1. you have not (and probably cannot) support your main premises, 2. i still think there are many contradictions in your world view, and 3. general comments why i think that even if your god exists, he doesn't deserve anyone's praise:

1. your main premise is unfounded

i am willing to take or leave your claim that your world view is 'complete' because i think that is irrelevant to the discussion. moreover, your claim that your conclusions follow logically from the premises is also irrelevant if you cannot support the premises. you have no compelling evidence for even your most fundamental premise -- namely that the bible is the inerrant word of god. from what i can tell, your 'support' for this premise follows along the following lines:

a. to lend support you claim that the bible is the word of god and essentially god-breathed in that the men who authored it had divine inspiration (god was essentially speaking through them). this is nowhere close to compelling. all we have to go on is that the bible was authored by a bunch of men -- natural beings like us. you cannot present convincing arguments that they were in any way inspired by a supernatural being. additionally, this 'support' for your premise is empty because it says basically nothing more than the bible is the word of god because god so spoke it, ie., the bible is the word of god because it is the word of god -- that dog won't hunt.

b. you also seem to suggest that we can know the bible is the inerrant word of god because god has so revealed this knowledge to you (and others) during your studies of the bible. again, this is not compelling -- you cannot credibly support your premises by appealing to the supernatural.

c. you also claim that since, in your opinion, the bible has no contradictions that should also lend credence to your premise. but even if the bible is devoid of contradiction, in no way does it logically follow that it is the word of god. moreover, it is highly debatable that the bible contains no contradictions (see, for example, the online version of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which demonstrates numerous plausible contradictions).

2. contradictions abound in your world view

despite what you say, i still think your worldview is rife with contradictions:

a. first, you say that god does not necessarily love everyone, and you also claim that god has preordained some to go to hell -- that is, he willingly sends some to hell. from what i can tell, this contradicts the bible, which is after all supposed to be the whole basis of your world view. for example:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 'for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of truth.'

2 Peter 3:9 'The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'

these quotes both demonstrate that god does not will that anyone should go to hell.

b. according to your world view, man does not possess free will; but i think this contradicts what genesis is trying to say (whether you read it literally or figuratively). moreover, without free will, man is not morally responsible for his actions (how can one be responsible for forced actions?); so for those sent to hell, god demonstrates a very warped view of moral responsibility indeed. your god has some real issues in this area.

c. your world view also takes a strict deterministic stance on whether one goes to heaven or hell. you claim that god 'preordains' some to go to heaven and others to go to hell. i think this contradicts the bible. if you read matthew 25, i think it clearly spells it out that god does not pre-judge man. for example:

matthew 25:35 'For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in'

how can you possibly interpret this as preordained judgment? he is spelling it out that judgment comes after the fact, based on actions carried out in the presence of free will. he doesn't say 'for i drew up a heaven list before ye were created, and ye name just happens to be on it...'

moreover, why would god instruct you to witness to others if he has already decided their fate?

3. general comments

your world view is enough for me to want to hang myself from the rafters. it wouldn't change things much since according to your view i am already hanging by strings, dancing only when the megalomaniacal puppeteer upstairs deems it fitting. according to your world view, man is dispensable and despicable. your world view is meaningless anyway: if i am already destined for hell or heaven, then it makes no nevermind whether i adopt your world view or not.

right now, i am just glad that your world view is unfounded and riddled with contradictions because your construction is less inviting than a colonoscopy.

Originally posted by vistesd
Coletti: [b]Because the axiom of the Bible as the true revelation of God to man leads to a worldview that is comprehensive and non-contradictory - explaining all things I observe regarding the nature of man, about knowledge, and my relationship to God - and as far as I can tell, no other worldview can say the same. (I took this quote from the “If Jesus ...[text shortened]... tra-credit" point here for my willingness to type out "presuppositional" that many times! 😉[/b]

Replying to your post at
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=26225&page=6

Thanks for taking the time to think about the Christian Worldview (CWV) I presented. The following are my enumerated responses to your enumerated responses.

1) I agree - a false premise might logically lead to false conclusions. There might be true conclusions - but that would be by accident. Only if my premises are true could the truth of any logically valid conclusions be assured.

2) I also agree here. A worldview that leads to false conclusions is clearly faulty. There may be apparent conflicts between the conclusions of my worldview and some "scientific" conclusions - but I do not consider the "scientific method" a sure means of finding truth.

Other areas of conflict are due to misunderstandings of what either the scientific or the CWV can reasonably tell us. The age of the earth is not clearly given in the Bible (and it is debatable if the Bible is meant for that kind of information), and the age of the earth is entirely theoretical by empirical methods and not provable.

The CWV encompasses all necessary absolute truths (not probable truths) - but it does not answer all possible questions. The question of whether Coletti will go to heaven is not answered by the Bible. What I had for breakfast is not found in the Bible. Technically, those things would not be considered knowledge in the CWV since the truth value of the answers are not deducible from Scripture.

However, basic arithmetic and logic are deducible from Scripture. And from arithmetic and logic, one can derive calculus and other higher maths. I think one can also find basic physical cause and effect is consistent if not deducible from the Bible. So the Christian can use physics and other science and math for daily living and the exploration of the created world.

The Bible can also lead me to answer some questions deductively that are not absolutely true propositions (knowledge) - but are piratical. For instance - I can not know what tie I should wear to work from the Bible - but I can deduce from the Bible that my tie should not be offensive to anyone.

3) Yes. Except in alternative religions, these are not issues of critical concern in other worldviews.

4) I'm not sure what outside test could be applied to the CWV that could show it is unreasonable. Someone may be able to present another worldview that is just as logical, and possibly just as comprehensive and coherent (I have not seen one yet). I can not prove that all other worldviews are false. I can not prove that the Christian worldview is true. But by the nature of the Christian worldview - all other worldviews must be false if it is true, and if any other worldview is true, the CWV would be false. In other words, all worldviews and the CWV are contradictory.

I believe we are all "presuppostionalist" at heart. We all hold a worldview that has fundamental axioms which can not be proven outside of the system they support or prove. Any system's axioms can be proven from within that system if that system is internally non-contradictory. It is useful to show your axioms are provable internally just to show the system is coherent - but the proof is necessarily circular and therefore not a proof of the system itself.

So I do not employ empirical proofs because I would need to assume the CWV to make them technically valid - which is begging the question. This is what goes on when one tries to prove the God of the Bible by employing evidential proofs, teleological proofs, transcendental proof, etc. All are begging the question.

On the other hand - the counter proofs suffer from the same question begging. As do all proofs of alternative worldviews. The axioms can not be proven externally, and internal proofs of the axioms do not prove the truth of the system itself. Thus, all worldviews are based on some axioms which are assumed valid. Everyone is a presuppostionalist in that sense.

P.S. You do get extra-credit for typing out "presuppositional" so many times! 🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
Replying to your post at
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=26225&page=6

Thanks for taking the time to think about the Christian Worldview (CWV) I presented. The following are my enumerated responses to your enumerated responses.

1) I agree - a false premise might logically lead to false conclusions. There might be true conc ...[text shortened]... hat sense.

P.S. You do get extra-credit for typing out "presuppositional" so many times! 🙂

Thanks for taking the time for the detailed response. Also, thanks for the "extra credit!" 😉

Be well.