Although the main arguments that lie behind Christian apologetics are founded upon the "Appeal To Ignorance", quoting scriptures or some "authority" and ad hoc are essential to "Defending The Faith" as well. I am STUNNED at how many Christians love to use the "You Can't Prove That There Is No God, Either" argument-- a logical fallacy (something Christians use ALL THE TIME) because no one can prove a universal negative. A Christian can't prove that there isn't a Zeus either nor can they disprove that there is a dancing invisible, intangible fairy dancing around the earth. Simply put, it doesn't hold water to continue to use LOGICAL FALLACIES. That alone should prove it's hogwash. The Ad Hoc mainly comes in when it appeals to "prophecy" or "Biblical archaeology." Yeah, sure this place exists and these people (some of them) may have existed but so did the North & the South, the burning of Atlanta and General Sherman-- doesn't prove that Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara did! And even it some things are true in the Bible (which they are), it doesn't mean it's all true. For instance, you know I write here on the Forums. You know I post pics. You know certain things that would lead you to believe that I am a real person. But, do you believe that I can fly without any equipment or gimmick? Do you believe that I can physically run faster than a race car in top-notch condition? No! Because you know that's horseshit. But, in the Bible --- most people swallow crap that they wouldn't even give a chance in reality. And ad hoc ... "after the fact"... "Psychics" use ad hoc ALL THE TIME and only those who are ignorant or CHOOSE to be ignorant fail to see through all this bullshit. To use logical fallacies and choose to be ignorant only reinforces that it is all a load of bunk. Two cents by Libertine.
Well, it gets to the point where Atheists are repeatedly challenging our beliefs to where we have to respond. That's fine. It's what debate is about. When however the shoe is on the other foot it's always some big cop out waiting to happen. I.E. this post. Ad hoc the burden of proof blah, blah, blah.
What bits of the bible do you think are true? The moral bits about love and so on? Because there's not much else really in there I see as either true or useful. The thing is though that christians generally don't see how arbitrary their views are. If they'd by chance been born in a different culture, they'd probably make the same claims for the Koran as they do for the Bible - because that happened to be the traditional religion of their native culture. There is no objective reason in modern times to believe the account of one scripture over another. None of the book based religions can argue for their ideas without reference to scripture, as it is the only thing they have. Also I think the existence of fairies is actually more probable then some of the stuff in the Bible - and certainly beleif in the faries is probably less harmful to the brain than belief in jelous jehova who demands the mass genital mutliation of fallen enemies and so on as per the OT.
Can't you respond intelligently, Portalguy? I would love to hear a real response. I know you have the mind to do so, but maybe you're just being lazy.
Libertine, I'm not trying to be insulting to you personally bro. I think you're a nice intelligent guy. If I came across that way I apologize. Thinking back I did. So, I'm sorry. It's just that we can get caught up in English semantics all day. The whole "court room" battle aspect to debating. Can I prove that Zeus and the pantheon of the Greek/Roman gods don't exist? Do I have to on The Christianity Forum? Can I give you strong arguments that God exists? Yes. Can I give you 100% proof he does? No. That's where faith comes in. Now I understand that you being Atheist you are more prone to believe indisputable scientific fact. I respect that. Keep in mind though that we make new discoveries due to technological and educational advances every year. There's been a score of discoveries that couldn't be 100% proven yet you'd be prone to believe. I bet you there's stuff right now you believe in that you've never witnessed first hand. God in the form of Jesus has revealed himself to me on a number of occasions. Not in the form like a ghost or specter but through problems solved and truths revealed. Now I can't come to you and chart it out, show you in a test tube or bring you to an observatory to show you. But, it's very real to me. Hope that's a better answer!
I agree you can't argue faith and logic and you see it going on all the time from both sides. Really, who cares? Bible thumpers can easily be ignored and probably should but it's a generalization that we are like that. No, the Bible can't be proven, thank fuck nor any concept in it. If you put live and let live first, know you aren't 'right' about anything oir hold the facts then any religion is fine it doesn't stop me from thinking in anyway and as for the arguements you used much like in the post about a womans right to abortion I couldn't agree more. just ignore the idiocy, it will always be there, always has man peace Andrew
I couldn't agree more, Lib. I hate it when people use fallacious arguments. But, at the same time, I have to wonder why you dislike the use of logical fallacies so much. Consider this: On what grounds do you, as an athiest/agnostic/whatever, establish the criteria that logic can/should/must be used? Please let me explain, and forgive me if I mislabel you as an athiest if that term isn't completely accurate. The presupposition in your complaint is that logical reasoning *is* a legitimate form of argumentation. It follows, then, that those arguing using fallacious arguments have violated logical laws and their arguments can therefore be dismissed. I'd like to think about the concept of logic for a moment. Logical laws are either universal absolutes or they are not. If they are not universal absolutes, then they are merely conventions of the human mind. As conventions (which in essence means "public opinion"), then you must justify why the arguments *must* be logical. In fact, by altering the convention (by refusing to agree on what the laws of logic actually *are*), I can alter logical laws or dismiss them entirely. The laws of logic become mutable and it becomes impossible to truly prove anything. Even a successful logical proof would only mean that we both agree on the rules and that we agree on the outcome. It would have no bearing and is completely useless for proving any objective statement. "Proving" anything becomes impossible in actuality because all I have to do to disprove it is to alter the laws. The laws themselves lose their law-like quality and become mere opinions. If, on the other hand, the laws of logic *are* universal absolutes, then the athiest has to account for an independent universal abstract existing in actually with no spacial extension in a purely naturalistic worldview. So you see, by calling on Christians to be logical (kind of an inverse of your complaint, you see), you have one of two options: 1) Recognize that logical argumentation is irrelevant because it is merely a restatement of opinion (so calling for logical argumentation becomes non-sensical since nothing can be proved) 2) Account for the existence of an immaterial law that carries extension in actual space with a purely naturalistic worldview You see? You have to *justify* the use of logic by showing that you can account for it within your own worldview. Otherwise, you are simply borrowing ideas from a Theistic worldview since they *can* account for the existence of absolute logical laws (they are an extension of the nature and character of the mind of God, i.e. they are how God thinks). Just my thoughts on the matter. YMMV.
YOU and I justify logic every day we live, man. The faculties we use are all we have to use and we do (no matter what) what we do because it "makes sense" which is the basis behind logic. Logic isn't "the answer", it is the method. Just as mathematics are a method of discovery in saying the 2+2 is just another way of saying "4". We invented math, but it appears absolute because it is a method that leads to what "IS". It's easy to play word games and deal sophistry, but you and I both know that you don't LIVE like that. You rely on it EVERY SINGLE DAY and thus, you justify it. As far as "absolutes" are concerned, logic is only a method to discover what IS. The only thing that is absolute is that. The "IS" part of everything. What we do with that "is" IS up to us.
We both use it, agreed. The basis behind logic is to find out what is true, not just what "makes sense" (thought that is definitely included). Even if logic is a method then that method is one of two things: 1) A consensus that is agreed upon by people 2) An observation of an abstract priciple by which the universe is guided In either case, the dilemma for the athiest remains the same. If the method is simply agreed upon, then if I choose to disagree with the consensus, logic becomes worthless. If the method is an observation of the way the natural world works, then you have to explain how the natural world is beholden to an immaterial abstraction. Consider this statement that I once read from an atheist: "Logic is the only means by which we may prove the truth of a statement." See the problem: If he uses logic to prove the statement is true, it is a circular argument. If he uses anything else, then the statement is simply not true. That's my point. I have a reason for logic to exist. I can provide rational support for believing that things in this universe will follow a rational order. I can expect the present to be like the past. The athiest has that expectation, just as theists do, but there is no way for them to account for those expectations. You expect the sun to rise, but there is no scientific way to prove that it will. If you use probability (math) then you are falling back into the presupposition that math and logic (both conventions by your view as I understand it) are reliable for providing expectations of the behavior of the natural world. But you then have to account for *why* they are reliable. If you say "it has always been" or "up to now" or even "as far as we know" then you are back to the problem of the past not being able to prove the future. It's a big nasty circle that most atheists simply ignore or pass off. If logic helps us discover what is, then the laws of logic must be absolute. If they aren't, then they cannot help us determine what is. So, how do you explain logic existing in a naturalistic worldview?
A synopsis on the discussion so far ~ point 1 * God/Jesus exists because problems are solved. point 2 * Dichotimous viewpoints = one way of thinking will prove while the other disproves Contribution ~ The mind is a wonderful device and, like a computer, it is governed by the software installed, so the mind is governed by inherited or chosen beliefs, customs, or conventions that are adopted either knowingly or unknowingly. A mind with religious software will only find a solution in the context of religion. However a mind that has deleted the religious paradigm (software) and installed it's own will see answers that are "outside the square" (paradigm/belief). If ever a supposed jesus said "know the truth and the truth will set you free", and railed against the religious establishment of the time, it is suggestive that the god and religion of the OT was a nonsense, and that once people found this out, they would be free of the tyranny that religion brings. Hence the crucifixion in order to retain the power/religion status quo. My feelings are that there are messages secreted into the bible that give those with eyes to see and ears to hear the method by which they may remove the malicious software of religion that enslaves the mind, as well as warnings of the consequences of speaking out against the religion paradigm ~ prophetic consequences that have proven not only too true, but exceptional as such in the biblical context.
For everything that's wrong with the notion that you can't prove a universal negative, see my newest thread in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, you know, where this thread actually belongs. The trouble with many people who defend logic is that they have no idea what logic is or does.
I do take the Scriptures as authority, but only because I take God as an authority, and Scripture as His special revelation. I would say that this is warrented given my worldview. Didn't we go over this about two years ago? To say "You can't prove a universal negative" is the same as saying "there exist no proof for a universal negative" which is a universal negative. If my Christian world view is true, then there is no Zeus. Very true...what has this to do with Chrisitainity? No...what has this to do with Christianity?
