This conversation started with him saying that his belief in god is just as rational as any atheist for not believing in a god. He referenced arguments by a man named Alvin Plantinga -Plantinga's Essay.  

The Christian below had commented on the point that I was making. I had said that the method best to determine empirical truth was Evidentialism, more specifically, Evidential Foundationalism. Explained by Youtube User Evid3nc3 =

I had said that his claims that ID and "other important advancements" had been stopped due to biased scientists were false. 

So How do you respond to this comment?

"Well as I have stated before, I would say that presuppositions are not better than other presuppositions. Most of the time we hold presuppositions without even knowing it because of the areas of the world we have grown up in. Our most intimate values and beliefs are also ingrained in our culture and life experiences. 

"I would say that your four presuppositions are not better than other presuppositions held by other people and your presuppositions do not help to discern undeniable truth or Truth with a capital T. I would even argue that your system is not "more reliable" compared to other systems when it comes to Truth. Your system only helps you to discern subjective truth through your own perceptions. In fact, you would probably say that all truths are through our perceptions and that there is no other way to obtain anything than through the senses but that is because you hold your presupposition of Naturalism. There also is another presuppositions before "I think therefore I am". 

Most people presuppose that the rational logic that humans use is actually Truly rational and logical outside of humans. In fact, this is even more basic and necessary before the presupposition of "I think therefore I am". Why is this more basic and necessary? Well if your logic is flawed from True logic you would never know. If fact as long as your premise allows for flawed logic then your flawed logic would seem True. 

In fact, Descarte's argument has also been torn apart along with all other philosophers and theologians arguments. There is no "argument" in philosophy or theology that has avoided scrutiny because most of the time the worldviews and presuppositions that people hold are just different which would lead them to differing conclusions. 

Your four presuppositions also stem from the western world. The system which you speak about is from a western point of view. (which is held by less than half the world). In most parts of the world people hold the presupposition of supernaturalism (or the idea that there is more than just the natural world. There exists the supernatural). There is this idea that supernatural things can occur in this world . This in itself is a worldview and something that all theologians presuppose.

ie. Let us talk about the mind. What is the mind? Where is the source of the mind? Is this something observable? Is it physical? Does it have mass? is it more spiritual? Is it the soul? is it the same thing as the brain? Is it the physical chemicals that are produced in the brain? 

There is a whole branch of philosophy devoted to the mind trying to discern if it is supernatural or natural.

Also I do not claim my presuppositions to be better than others simply because I do not believe I have that knowledge and authority. For you to claim that your presuppositions are better, you would need to have look into every other single view out there and compare it to your presuppositions. You would also have to be able to know that other people's presuppositions are wrong and to see if their flow of logic is consistent within their own presuppositions. You would have to know their views inside and out in order to make the comparison claim that "my system is better". You would also need to question your own presuppositions and know your presuppositions are True.

Sadly scientists have been thrown out of the community for even simply claiming to be christian or religious. People are not as nice or logical as you think they are. People do judge even before testing a theory. Now I am not saying all christian relieve this persecution. ie. francis collins, the man that pioneered the human genome project."

Views: 458

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nelson, I am curious of what you thought about Chris or Evid3nc3 video posted above. Methodological Naturalism is the most accurate way of determining truth beyond a reasonable doubt but does this have ties to the videos subject of Evidentialism? The process of thought the video describes is roughly what I do whenever I learn or verify something new. Is he describing Evidentialism accurately or if not what system is he describing in the video? 

Yes I see what you are saying. This is the dilemma with the conversation because it seems this christian feels that Evidentialism and Methodological Naturalism are equal to the justification of Supernaturalism. I don't understand how he can think that but ya. Thank you for the confirmation!

I thank you all for the insightful replies! It has helped a great deal

I just have to say how very impressed I am by this conversation. Far beyond my pointed little head but I love reading it and learning so very much

Hello Nelson: Thank you for your thoughtful and cogent messages on this thread. Best Wishes and Regards

Presupposition?  That is the exclusive paradigm of religionists.  It is 180 degrees from what scientists do.  In terms of "science," it exists only in the delusionary realm of “creation science” - an oxymoron if there ever was one.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service