The Causal God Gambit

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is not a case of revealed theology OR natural theology. Both are part and parcel of theology. Even modern theology.

http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-II-Creator

1. All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
2. God was moved by His goodness to create the world.

Christianity does no start with natural religion, it starts with supposed revelation. That is a dogma of most major Christian sects.

Because religious skeptics deny that revelation, natural religion is used to bolster the dogmatic claims, to demonstrate that revealed dogma is true. But it does not supplant that dogma. Genesis is still the claim that matters here.

The other aspect of theology is to try to square the supposed attributes of God with the problems that skeptics find with God's supposed attributes. For example, what is omnipotence? But omnipotence is a concept derived from revelation. Revelation underlies that. If it was not for the Bible and its supposed revelations, we would not be arguing any of this. Much of "modern theology" is trying to dig itself out of the holes left by revealed theology. To find definitions of such concepts of omnipotence that do not lead to big holes that demonstrate revelation is not correct. Or trying to finesse the whole issue altogether. Creation of Plantingian "defenses" for example.This is what I am interested in. Theology's problems with supporting revealed theology and failure to be able to support revelation as true or possible.

 

[remez]

It is not a case of revealed theology OR natural theology. Both are part and parcel of theology. Even modern theology.

http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-II-Creator

1. All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
2. God was moved by His goodness to create the world.

Christianity does no start with natural religion, it starts with supposed revelation. That is a dogma of most major Christian sects.

Because religious skeptics deny that revelation, natural religion is used to bolster the dogmatic claims, to demonstrate that revealed dogma is true. But it does not supplant that dogma. Genesis is still the claim that matters here.

The other aspect of theology is to try to square the supposed attributes of God with the problems that skeptics find with God's supposed attributes. For example, what is omnipotence? But omnipotence is a concept derived from revelation. Revelation underlies that. If it was not for the Bible and its supposed revelations, we would not be arguing any of this. Much of "modern theology" is trying to dig itself out of the holes left by revealed theology. To find definitions of such concepts of omnipotence that do not lead to big holes that demonstrate revelation is not correct. Or trying to finesse the whole issue altogether. Creation of Plantingian "defenses" for example.This is what I am interested in. Theology's problems with supporting revealed theology and failure to be able to support revelation as true or possible.

Straight up please allow us the abbreviation PS aka presuppositionalists, al, ic with whatever contexted suffix.
Wow should have done that a looong time ago I'm so tired of typing that word.

Christianity does no start with natural religion, it starts with supposed revelation.

Your citation only mentions what it presupposes and WLC and I are not PS like you.

It provides nothing to support your case that NT (aka Natural Theology) does not exist.

That is a dogma of most major Christian sects.

So.....
it does nothing to support your case the NT does not exist.

For example, what is omnipotence? But omnipotence is a concept derived from revelation. Revelation underlies that. If it was not for the Bible and its supposed revelations, we would not be arguing any of this.

I have been waiting for you to spell it out. NT does not exist because it is actually PS. It is bad philosophy.

You are reasoning that you can only try to provide evidence for things you don't believe in.
Think about it................
If you believe in something than you can't provide evidence for it because that would be circular.

Because NT are trying to provide evidence for the existence of God,
you conclude......we are all then PS because it is God we are trying to provide evidence for.
Thus concluding we are wrong by circular reasoning.

Think about that. What a straw man. Way too lazy.

Come on really? Did you think that through? You can only provide evidence for things you don't believe exists.
Apply that to boson researchers. Are their efforts ridiculously circular?

Wait wait ....you might be on to something....the LHC is circular.

Want more examples???? They're not BORING.

What your reasoning reduces to here is this peculiar truth, that the only person that can provide true evidence for God is an atheist.

Nice piece of reasoning there.

On Guard.
gambit = straw man

 

[Juma]

Straight up please allow us the abbreviation PS aka presuppositionalists, al, ic with whatever contexted suffix.
Wow should have done that a looong time ago I'm so tired of typing that word.

Christianity does no start with natural religion, it starts with supposed revelation.

Your citation only mentions what it presupposes and WLC and I are not PS like you.

It provides nothing to support your case that NT (aka Natural Theology) does not exist.

That is a dogma of most major Christian sects.

So.....
it does nothing to support your case the NT does not exist.

For example, what is omnipotence? But omnipotence is a concept derived from revelation. Revelation underlies that. If it was not for the Bible and its supposed revelations, we would not be arguing any of this.

I have been waiting for you to spell it out. NT does not exist because it is actually PS. It is bad philosophy.

You are reasoning that you can only try to provide evidence for things you don't believe in.
Think about it................
If you believe in something than you can't provide evidence for it because that would be circular.

Because NT are trying to provide evidence for the existence of God,
you conclude......we are all then PS because it is God we are trying to provide evidence for.
Thus concluding we are wrong by circular reasoning.

Think about that. What a straw man. Way too lazy.

Come on really? Did you think that through? You can only provide evidence for things you don't believe exists.
Apply that to boson researchers. Are their efforts ridiculously circular?

Wait wait ....you might be on to something....the LHC is circular.

Want more examples???? They're not BORING.

What your reasoning reduces to here is this peculiar truth, that the only person that can provide true evidence for God is an atheist.

Nice piece of reasoning there.

On Guard.
gambit = straw man

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I never posted that natural religion does not exist. It does. The first full blown NT was from Plato, in his "Laws", book X, and it was aimed squarely and explicitly at atheists. And that has been a major reason for natural religion ever since. Battling religious skeptics. Or trying to make room for reason along side revelation. As per Aquinas.

But as stated, Christianity does not in fact , start with natural theology, it does indeed start with revelation. From Genesis to the New Testament books.

 

[remez]

Straight up please allow us the abbreviation PS aka presuppositionalists, al, ic with whatever contexted suffix.
Wow should have done that a looong time ago I'm so tired of typing that word.



Your citation only mentions what it presupposes and WLC and I are not PS like you.

It provides nothing to support your case that NT (aka Natural Theology) does not exist.

That is a dogma of most major Christian sects.

So.....
it does nothing to support your case the NT does not exist.

For example, what is omnipotence? But omnipotence is a concept derived from revelation. Revelation underlies that. If it was not for the Bible and its supposed revelations, we would not be arguing any of this.

I have been waiting for you to spell it out. NT does not exist because it is actually PS. It is bad philosophy.

You are reasoning that you can only try to provide evidence for things you don't believe in.
Think about it................
If you believe in something than you can't provide evidence for it because that would be circular.

Because NT are trying to provide evidence for the existence of God,
you conclude......we are all then PS because it is God we are trying to provide evidence for.
Thus concluding we are wrong by circular reasoning.

Think about that. What a straw man. Way too lazy.

Come on really? Did you think that through? You can only provide evidence for things you don't believe exists.
Apply that to boson researchers. Are their efforts ridiculously circular?

Wait wait ....you might be on to something....the LHC is circular.

Want more examples???? They're not BORING.

What your reasoning reduces to here is this peculiar truth, that the only person that can provide true evidence for God is an atheist.

Nice piece of reasoning there.

On Guard.
gambit = straw man

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT.

Can you give me some empirical evidence for that?

 

[remez]

I never posted that natural religion does not exist.

Yes and no. You did not actually say it did not exist you just fallaciously attempted to reason it away as being presuppositional. Here......

But as stated, Christianity does not in fact , start with natural theology, it does indeed start with revelation. From Genesis to the New Testament books.

as stated before...
Yes from post 61 as well.

It is not a case of revealed theology OR natural theology. Both are part and parcel of theology.

As I stated before your reasoning is fallacious..................Look up "affirming the consequent."

For this reason and the others......
Your gambit is still a straw man.

 

[Juma]

Straight up please allow us the abbreviation PS aka presuppositionalists, al, ic with whatever contexted suffix.
Wow should have done that a looong time ago I'm so tired of typing that word.



Your citation only mentions what it presupposes and WLC and I are not PS like you.

It provides nothing to support your case that NT (aka Natural Theology) does not exist.

That is a dogma of most major Christian sects.

So.....
it does nothing to support your case the NT does not exist.

For example, what is omnipotence? But omnipotence is a concept derived from revelation. Revelation underlies that. If it was not for the Bible and its supposed revelations, we would not be arguing any of this.

I have been waiting for you to spell it out. NT does not exist because it is actually PS. It is bad philosophy.

You are reasoning that you can only try to provide evidence for things you don't believe in.
Think about it................
If you believe in something than you can't provide evidence for it because that would be circular.

Because NT are trying to provide evidence for the existence of God,
you conclude......we are all then PS because it is God we are trying to provide evidence for.
Thus concluding we are wrong by circular reasoning.

Think about that. What a straw man. Way too lazy.

Come on really? Did you think that through? You can only provide evidence for things you don't believe exists.
Apply that to boson researchers. Are their efforts ridiculously circular?

Wait wait ....you might be on to something....the LHC is circular.

Want more examples???? They're not BORING.

What your reasoning reduces to here is this peculiar truth, that the only person that can provide true evidence for God is an atheist.

Nice piece of reasoning there.

On Guard.
gambit = straw man

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT.

Can you give me some empirical evidence for that?

Yes, of course. science has evolution, cosmology and Quantum Chromo Dynamics etc etc. Science has saved us from many diseases, brought us computers etc.
Theology? Nada...

But then you already knows this but ignores it. That is not very honest, is it?

It has been known for a long time that logical systems are not absolute statements, they are relative statements: it is a structure of statements that can ve applied to anything that matches its presumptions (its definitions and axioms). But only as long as it it actually matches. Problem is that that question,(is it a match?) is outside the logical system.
Thus you need empirical support for your statements.

 

[Learner]

Science is 'neutral' in the scheme of things as would be with evolution which is NOT opposed to creation (Not that you were implying this was I think). Both Atheists and Theists can use science to measue 'known' properties of the universe only as far as the tools allows them by its limitation.

There were "many" contributors to science who were theists.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html#Scientific100

 

[Juma]

Science is 'neutral' in the scheme of things as would be with evolution which is NOT opposed to creation (Not that you were implying this was I think). Both Atheists and Theists can use science to measue 'known' properties of the universe only as far as the tools allows them by its limitation.

There were "many" contributors to science who were theists.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html#Scientific100

what is your point? A lot of scientists like star trek and harry potter.
I have no idea why you mention "Creation", a pure mindfart, together with evolution, one of the most established theory there is. What is your point?

 

[abaddon]

Science is 'neutral' in the scheme of things as would be with evolution which is NOT opposed to creation (Not that you were implying this was I think). Both Atheists and Theists can use science to measue 'known' properties of the universe only as far as the tools allows them by its limitation.

There were "many" contributors to science who were theists.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html#Scientific100

Yes both atheists and theists can, since that's irrelevant to the scientific method. The contributors could be Rastafarian, Pastafarian, nosepickers, child molesters, devil worshipers, two headed freaks. Anything at all so long as they understand and apply the scientific method. Many theists talk as if who says what matters, probably their background had authoritative persons interpreting truth at them. But in science it doesn't matter. We honor Darwin and Einstein and others for their discoveries, but if they hadn't done it someone else would have.

So, all that you can know about the universe will be scientific knowledge. Saying so might look like "scientism" to persons who think the universe opens up to armchair philosophers, but that's like calling a chef an elitist "chefist" for finding that cooking meat is the best way to prepare it for eating.

 

[Lion IRC]

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT.

Can you give me some empirical evidence for that?

It has been known for a long time that logical systems are not absolute statements, they are relative statements: it is a structure of statements that can ve applied to anything that matches its presumptions (its definitions and axioms). But only as long as it it actually matches. Problem is that that question,(is it a match?) is outside the logical system.
Thus you need empirical support for your statements.

Logical systems most certainly require absolutes. Think about it. There would be no such thing as a logical fallacy if this were not the case. How would we tell the difference between a valid argument and an invalid argument?

If all men are mortal and if Socrates is a man, we don't have a preferential option as to the conclusion. It is a necessary inference that we MUST conclude.

And science would be redundant without the philosophy of science. Think about it. How far would science get if we didn't agree on the definition of words like 'empirical' or 'evidence'. Science holds that all hypotheses are tentative. Why?

Because philosophically it is possible that a given theory might one day be falsified.

 

[Lion IRC]

If a person says we ought to confine ourselves to scientistic verification they are begging the obvious question - can science (itself) verify that circular epistemic/philosophical claim?

 

[blastula]

If a person says we ought to confine ourselves to scientistic verification they are begging the obvious question - can science (itself) verify that circular epistemic/philosophical claim?

The claim is a not an empirical claim, so it's not circular.

 

[Lion IRC]

The bible is true because the bible say it is God's Word.
...not a circular claim you say?

 

[blastula]

The bible is true because the bible say it is God's Word.
...not a circular claim you say?

It is a circular claim, and it is not analogous to the other claim.

 

[remez]

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT.

Can you give me some empirical evidence for that?

Yes, of course. science has evolution, cosmology and Quantum Chromo Dynamics etc etc. Science has saved us from many diseases, brought us computers etc.

Thus you need empirical support for your statements.

Thank You.
You made my point.
You just rightfully demonstrated the you can provide empirical evidence to support a philosophical position.

Your original statement that I asked you to supply some empirical evidence for........ was in fact..... a philosophical statement..........
.......a piece of logic you hold to be true.

I concede that you provided empirical evidence to support your philosophy.

And here is the point.............Why can't I do the same?

I obviously, would in the same fashion as you did right there, provide much of the same evidence to support my philosophical position as well. But you of course would assert that I can't do that with no more reason than, you can't play with my toy.

So? Where does that leave us?

Well if you are going to be mature about it.....then.....It leads us into a philosophical debate about the same evidence.
And that is where the debate takes place between NT and scientism.

If you are going to continue to conclude that NT cannot use the same empirical evidence to support its position,,,,,,,,,
then you will have to step up to the plate
and
defend the philosophy you're using to form that conclusion.

Til then, your groundless conclusion that NT does not have the support of empirical evidence amounts to nothing more than a childish tantrum.

 

[Juma]

You miss that you cannot prove anything about the world by logic alone, you need empirical evidence. That is what kills NT.

Can you give me some empirical evidence for that?

It has been known for a long time that logical systems are not absolute statements, they are relative statements: it is a structure of statements that can ve applied to anything that matches its presumptions (its definitions and axioms). But only as long as it it actually matches. Problem is that that question,(is it a match?) is outside the logical system.
Thus you need empirical support for your statements.

Logical systems most certainly require absolutes. Think about it. There would be no such thing as a logical fallacy if this were not the case. How would we tell the difference between a valid argument and an invalid argument?

If all men are mortal and if Socrates is a man, we don't have a preferential option as to the conclusion. It is a necessary inference that we MUST conclude.

of course. "if". but that "if" is exactly where empiri enters: to know wethrr socrates is mortal we need to check if he is a man and if all men are mortal.

logical syllogism like this doesnt not bring new knowledge, it is only reformulation of existng knowledge.

 

[Juma]

Thank You.
You made my point.
You just rightfully demonstrated the you can provide empirical evidence to support a philosophical position

no. i didnt. my position, that science works, is an empirical position, not one of pure philosophy

And here is the point.............Why can't I do the same?

yes, why cant you? nobody is stopping you.

show us the evidence.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

no. i didnt. my position, that science works, is an empirical position, not one of pure philosophy

And here is the point.............Why can't I do the same?

yes, why cant you? nobody is stopping you.

show us the evidence.

When it comes to understanding the material world, science works. Theology has not, nor occultism, nor mysticism. That is a simple fact of life. All the basic sciences, physics, chemistry, biology et al are based on empiricism.

As ancient Greek speculations, the 4 humors, the Universe made of Earth, Water, Fire and Air et al demonstrate pulling a hypothesis out of the air is not a useful way of understanding how the world works. Nor is mythology based theology. And if theology has such a poor track record here, why should we grant it any expertise in other supernatural realms?

 

[atrib]

no. i didnt. my position, that science works, is an empirical position, not one of pure philosophy

And here is the point.............Why can't I do the same?

yes, why cant you? nobody is stopping you.

show us the evidence.

This is where it starts to go off the rails. I predict that none of the theists in this thread is going to provide any empirical evidence to support their position.