Philosophically, atheism doesn't make sense. Persuade me that this statement is false. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Philosophically, atheism doesn't make sense. Persuade me that this statement is false.
in Philosophy



Please don't attempt to debate if you didn't listen to this debate.
I wish to take the stance of Dr. Bahnsen, in that Christianity is indeed the only worldview that can account for the existence of the laws of logic, and therefore, any other worldview (such as atheism) is philosophically false. If you wish to argue for an atheistic worldview, please state your definition of an atheist, since in the above debate, two different definitions was used by Dr. Stein.
As much as I enjoy name calling, let's refrain from that, and give sources to all of the arguments we use. 

Thank you very much!
  1. Live Poll

    Can atheists be philosophically right?

    7 votes
    1. Yes
      71.43%
    2. No
      28.57%
  2. Live Poll

    What is atheism?

    7 votes
    1. God doesn't exist
      71.43%
    2. The evidence for God at this point is unconvincing
      28.57%
  3. Live Poll

    Is atheism a faith?

    7 votes
    1. Yes, anything that you accept from anyone is a faith
      42.86%
    2. No, if enough people said it's so, then naturally it is.
      57.14%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited September 2018
    You say .....Please don't attempt to debate if you didn't listen to this debate. 

    My reply ..... It’s over two hours long no one is going to watch that , can you not give a summary and if not why not ?

    You say .....I wish to take the stance of Dr. Bahnsen

    My reply ..... So it’s not your argument but someone else’s you wish to defend ?


    You say .....in that Christianity is indeed the only worldview that can account for the existence of the laws of logic

    My reply .... That’s merely your opinion 

    You say .....and therefore, any other worldview (such as atheism) is philosophically false.

    My reply .... I disagree 

    You say ...If you wish to argue for an atheistic worldview,

    My reply .....What do you mean by “Atheistic worldview “ ?

    You say .....please state your definition of an atheist

    My reply .... You just mentioned an “atheistic worldview “ without knowing the definition of the term atheist ?

    ,You say .....since in the above debate, two different definitions was used by Dr. Stein. 

    My reply .... I don’t know or care for the opinion of either of these characters I want to know can you back your debate title up or not ?

    You say ....As much as I enjoy name calling, let's refrain from that, and give sources to all of the arguments we use. 

    My reply .... Well yes you do enjoy name calling , also you have a history of fleeing when confronted with difficult questions as in I asked you in a previous post to defend biblical contradictions , I pointed out many and was met by a wall of insults and you refusing to defend your position , I think you may prehaps do likewise here or will you at least attempt to defend someone else’s position youvevlatched onto ?

    Thank you very much!
  • @Joeseph

    Out of sheer interest, did you ever do a personality test? I'm almost certain you'd be an S type.

    Anyway.
    You say .....Please don't attempt to debate if you didn't listen to this debate. 
    My reply ..... It’s over two hours long no one is going to watch that , can you not give a summary and if not why not ?
    You say .....I wish to take the stance of Dr. Bahnsen
    My reply ..... So it’s not your argument but someone else’s you wish to defend ?

    You say .....in that Christianity is indeed the only worldview that can account for the existence of the laws of logic
    My reply .... That’s merely your opinion 
    You say .....and therefore, any other worldview (such as atheism) is philosophically false. 
    My reply .... I disagree 
    You say ...If you wish to argue for an atheistic worldview, 
    My reply .....What do you mean by “Atheistic worldview “ ?
    You say .....please state your definition of an atheist
    My reply .... You just mentioned an “atheistic worldview “ without knowing the definition of the term atheist ?
    ,You say .....since in the above debate, two different definitions was used by Dr. Stein. 
    My reply .... I don’t know or care for the opinion of either of these characters I want to know can you back your debate title up or not ?
    You say ....As much as I enjoy name calling, let's refrain from that, and give sources to all of the arguments we use. 
    My reply .... Well yes you do enjoy name calling , also you have a history of fleeing when confronted with difficult questions as in I asked you in a previous post to defend biblical contradictions , I pointed out many and was met by a wall of insults and you refusing to defend your position , I think you may prehaps do likewise here or will you at least attempt to defend someone else’s position youvevlatched onto ?
    Thank you very much!
    No. I'm not going to debate matters that has already been clarified in a previous debate. I can give you a summary: Dr. Bahnsen argues that Atheism can't account for the existence of the laws of Logic. Dr. Stein fails miserably to prove this wrong. Happy?

    When you're arguing for atheism, and you quote from a book by Dawkins, are you defending his views? No. I'm not defending someone else's statements, I simply want to further get into this topic without having to repeat anything that's already been said.

    This whole debate is about you persuading me. Simply saying that something is my opinion isn't helping you at all.

    Disagreeing is fine, how about trying to persuade me?

    What part of atheistic worldview don't you understand?

    I know two definitions of atheism. If you would do yourself the favor of listening to the debate you'd know them too. Apparently though, not all of us deems it important to know what Atheism is about, as you clearly don't understand an atheistic worldview.

    Wow, chill of bro. Some of us have real lives. Anyway. The goal of this debate is not to present issues from the past, but for you to convince me that atheism makes philosophical sense. In this whole argument of yours, you have done nothing of the sort. All you did so far is try and make me look silly. This attitude is not going to get you far in life.
  • JoesephJoeseph 554 Pts
    edited September 2018
    @Pieter

    You say .....No. I'm not going to debate matters that has already been clarified in a previous debate

    My reply .... Incorrect , you never presented a defence of the biblical contradictions I pointed out so now you just lie instead 

    You say  .....I can give you a summary: Dr. Bahnsen argues that Atheism can't account for the existence of the laws of Logic. Dr. Stein fails miserably to prove this wrong. Happy?

    My reply .... Wow , two people disagreeing on a You Tube video , how unique 

    You say ...  When you're arguing for atheism,and you quote from a book by Dawkins,

    My reply .... Where have I ever done that ? Atheism is a position on one question alone why would one need to quote from Dawkins regards this ?

    You say ....are you defending his views?

    My reply .... I don’t know ask people who do it ? 

    You say .....No. I'm not defending someone else's statements, I simply want to further get into this topic without having to repeat anything that's already been said.

    My reply .... So you cannot summarise the two and a half hour debate ? 

    You say ....This whole debate is about you persuading me. Simply saying that something is my opinion isn't helping you at all.

    My reply .... But that’s what you’ve given your opinion nothing else 

    You say .....Disagreeing is fine, how about trying to persuade me?

    My reply .... Persuade you of what you refuse to summarise your poster boys argument 

    You say ....What part of atheistic worldview don't you understand?

    My reply .... I understand their is no such thing as it’s a position on one question alone , your failure to realise this is the cause of you making inane statements 

    You say .....I know two definitions of atheism.

    My reply .... Well yippie for you 

    You say ....If you would do yourself the favor of listening to the debate you'd know them too.

    My reply .... But I know what atheism is you don’t thus your continued confusion 

    You say .....Apparently though, not all of us deems it important to know what Atheism is about, as you clearly don't understand an atheistic worldview.

    My reply ..... Yes you keep parroting this inane nonsense please explain what an “ atheistic worldview “ is ?

    You say .....Wow, chill of bro. Some of us have real lives. Anyway.

    My reply .... I’m not nor would ever want to be your “bro “ regarding real lives that’s interesting seeing as you assume people on C D are going too watch a two and a half hour lecture on presuppositional apologetics ..... Now that’s your idea of a “ real life “ ...wow 

    You say .....The goal of this debate is not to present issues from the past

    My reply .... I was just wondering if you would flee yet again like you always do 

    You say ....  for you to convince me that atheism makes philosophical sense.

    My reply .... What part doesn’t make sense to you as in atheism is a position on one question alone as in is there a god ? 

    You say ....In this whole argument of yours, you have done nothing of the sort

    My reply .... I’m waiting for you to summarise you poster boys argument but you cannot why’s that ? 

    You say ...... All you did so far is try and make me look silly.

    My reply ......You don’t need any help doing that 


    You say .....This attitude is not going to get you far in life.

    My reply .... I know it’s totally unfair to ask for a summary of a two and a half hour lecture , I must remember that if I want to get as far as you in life 

    Regards personality types yes people like you tend to have a fixation with them and no doubt your type changes everyday , I guess placing me as an S type is more than likely your attempt at an insult but hey you’re a Christian so it was anticipated 
  • 1.) Christianity doesn’t account for a the laws of logic.

    It pretends to account for the laws of logic by asserting they were created through magic.

    2.) Why does Atheism have to “account” for the laws of logic in order to be valid? Atheism isn’t an explanation of how things in the universe were created.

    3.) If I assert the laws of logic were created by being pooped out of a Magic sky b*tthole - is that equally philosophically valid as Christianity?




  • @Gooberry

    Answer me this: Do you believe in the existence of the laws of logic? If yes: What are they?
  • @Pieter

    At s most basic level the laws of logic are the formulations and constructs by which humans work out whether statements are valid.


    Do they “exist” - sure. Are they some objectively existing part of the fabric of the universe rather than a human construct? Dunno.


    The question is - we can use the laws of logic to tell us that a square circle is not possible. Is it not possible because there’s some universal laws of logic? Or just because the human imagination has introduced the concept of things that are impossible for which we needed to introduce the laws of logic to help us?

  • @Gooberry

    Good answer. 

    So would you say that the laws of logic are a non-material entity?
  • Pieter said:
    @Gooberry

    Good answer. 

    So would you say that the laws of logic are a non-material entity?

    It depends what you mean.

    Are the laws of logic some objective existant universal rule - there is absolutely no evidence of this, and I think I specifically outlined this in the previous post you chose to gloss over. As a result it would be wholly dishonest for me, or anyone, to claim this is what the laws of logic are.

    Are they a Human construct invented by humans to work around limitations in human thinking - I think this is most likely - as the very concepts they deal with - true, false, possible and impossible - are all human constructs too.

    both of the above could be considered “non-material entity” - but they mean very very very different things.


  • @Gooberry

    So what exactly is logic? Is it a universal truth? Or just some chemicals in our brains?
  • @Gooberry

    I'm just clarifying, I'm not trying to ignore anything you've already said.
  • The world view you are taking doesn't really match your claim.

    You are looking to support the idea that philisophically "Christianity is indeed the only worldview that can account for the existence of the laws of logic". However it would be more accurate to say that according to one particular philosophy "Christianity is indeed the only worldview that can account for the existence of the laws of logic", not philosophy as a whole.

    Bahnsen's philosophy is founded on a number of axioms which while internally consistent are themselves subjective, illogical and unproven - the very existence of Jehova being the most obvious one although also counting others like how logic exists as a reflection of Jehova.

    His arguments are therefore logically irrelevent to any atheists, as to consider them valid people have to make assumptions (e.g. Jehovah definitely exists) that are incompatible with atheism.
  • Pieter said:
    @Gooberry

    So what exactly is logic? Is it a universal truth? Or just some chemicals in our brains?

    I have actually answered this twice, both in the post you were “replying” to - and the post before that too. Is there any particular aspect of those answers that you didn’t like? Or did it simply not fit into the answer you wanted me to give?


    But let me answer again in more detail.


    Firstly, I don’t think the concept of universal truth, actually exists. At a universal level, things are simply a particular way. Truth is only relevant to our - humans - understanding of this universe. Take away humans and the concept of truth ceases to have any meaning. Truth, or falseness is relevant only to our understanding and categorization of abstract ideas.

    Or put another way: take the statement that Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. The reality is everest is the mountain on the planet with the greatest height: so the statement is true.

    Truth in this case is not a property of the mountain - but of the human statement that was written down to describe the mountain.


    In the exactly same way, logic does not appear to be some universal truth: there is no evidence that it is, nor evidence that universal truth even exists. It’s a set of human rules used to assess human statements.


    For example, take the concept of a square circle. Does a square circle exist? No.

    Do square circles not exist because there are some universal laws of logic that exist at some universal level that sorts the universe by preventing impossible things from happening?

    Or is the only reason we’re even talking about square circles because humans have the ability to describe or conceptualize things that are impossible or can’t exist. As a result, would that not mean that the laws of logic are rules that are applied not at a universal level - but to human language and descriptions to help weed out ideas or concepts that are not possible.
  • @Gooberry

    Thanks for the long answer. Appreciate it.

    This hasn't persuaded me. If logic is only rules applied to human language and descriptions to help weed out ideas or concepts that are not possible, then logic would differ just as languages differ. Then people of different cultures would use different logic, there would be no way of judging something by logic, since everyone is clearly different and therefore our logic would also be different. Then the simplest answer to this debate, is that in my brain, logically it doesn't make sense that atheism is true, but in your brain, it does.

    This is the biggest mistake atheism makes, in that it cannot account for the existence of the laws of knowledge, and without the existence of universal logic, this debate is senseless.
  • @Ampersand

    Agreed. For the existence of the laws of logic to make sense, you'd need to have a God. If you can argue that a Christian argument is logically irrelevant to atheists because we don't share the same axioms, then what's the point of debating? No 2 persons have the same axioms, and if I felt like I was losing the argument I could just fall back to saying that it doesn't make sense to me because you're using different axioms.
  • @Pieter

    Why do you think the rules of logic would change just because they are a human construct?


    I think you’re confusing the idea that something is specific to humans and not universal, and things that are arbitrary. 


    For example, a basic rule of logic is that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time.


    That’s is not an objective universal thing, but a human construct because we have introduced the concept of statements that  are not possible in how we understand. reality.


    So it’s not arbitrary - you’ll not be able to have a square circle anywhere - but it is still a human construct.

  • Pieter said:
    @Ampersand

    Agreed. For the existence of the laws of logic to make sense, you'd need to have a God. If you can argue that a Christian argument is logically irrelevant to atheists because we don't share the same axioms, then what's the point of debating? No 2 persons have the same axioms, and if I felt like I was losing the argument I could just fall back to saying that it doesn't make sense to me because you're using different axioms.
    I'd have to say to most of this... not really.

    "For the existence of the laws of logic to make sense, you'd need to have a God." - There's no reason that alternate rationales cannot reach the same conclusion. One, both or none of the rationales can be wrong but they can still state the same thing. Now certainly you can certainly say that they don't make sense from the perspective you are espousing - but for the time being you have not presented an argument which presents the transcendental argument for the existence of Jehovah as objective fact rather than subjective belief so until you so what makes sense your ideology isn't relevant to the wider debate as that would be circular reasoning.

    "If you can argue that a Christian argument is logically irrelevant to atheists because we don't share the same axioms, then what's the point of debating?" - Let's clarify on what a 'Christian argument' is. I'm not arguing that an argument made by a Christian is automatically irrelevant to atheists. I'm not arguing a that an argument that says a god exists is automatically irrelevant to atheists either. What I'm arguing is that if a Christian wants to make an argument then only works if god exists and they are dealing with someone whose belief in that god is not axiomatic - they need to provide evidence, rationale or logic to back-up the existence of the god in question. This isn't unique to this situation - that's just the basis of a reasoned dialectic to try and discover the truth and is the expected standard of debates. The point is to discuss and challenge those axioms - providing proof to back them up.

    If you want to make the argument you need to present the evidence that the existence of morality, law, etc proves the existence of god - which you won't be able to do because when it comes down to it you won't be able to offer objective truth or logic and it will fundamentally be based in your subjective belief - which in the grand scheme of things is no more important than my subjective belief to the contrary. I've always found the transcendental proof of god a rather childish argument based on a lack of self-awareness and acknowledgement of the agency of others.

    "No 2 persons have the same axioms, and if I felt like I was losing the argument I could just fall back to saying that it doesn't make sense to me because you're using different axioms."

    Based on the small number of axioms that can be required for a discussion of a particular topic and the number of people in the world, I'd wager against your claim. However it's irrelevant really, in an honest and open discussion people should be willing to challenge and debate the ideas they hold as axiomatic.
  • @Ampersand

    What would you consider to be evidence of a God?
  • @Gooberry

    So your definition of logic is based on the assumption that the future is going to be exactly like the past? Since in our observation, the past has never produced a square circle, or a statement that is both true and false.

    For this arguing to make sense, we have to assume that the past has never been different from the present, e.g there was no period in which a square circle existed. So how would you go about explaining the eternal existence of the universe? From our observations of the past (which your logic is based upon) something cannot be eternal, since we have absolutely no example of it. At some point - for this argument to make sense - the universe had to be different. In this 'different' nature of the universe, different logic will apply, and naturally, the existence of something without a start would be possible. In this 'different' nature of the universe, a circle could even be square. So how accurate is logic based on the assumption that the nature of the universe will continue tomorrow, as it did today?

    Not persuaded.
  • Pieter said:
    @Ampersand

    What would you consider to be evidence of a God?
    I wouldn't ask for anything different then I'd want if you had to provide evidence on any other disputed point. The relevant specifics are really in the hands of theists to provide and will presumably vary from person to person based on the perceived characteristics of the god in question 
  • @Pieter

    I have no clue where any of that came from.


    Firstly, my “definition” of the laws of logic are based on the human structures and laws of logic that you and I both broadly agree upon.


    The laws of logic say you cant have a square circle - because humans came up with the concept of mutual exclusion - that if an object is A, it can’t also be B, if those are two orthogonal things.


    It seems to mostly make sense, no one disagrees, and thus far no one really has found an exception in reality.


    It makes no assumptions about what happened in the universe at any other time - other than being broadly supported by observation with the accurate statement that no one has ever seen an object being two mutually exclusive things at the same time.


    If you found a square circle tomorrow - even if we had no idea what that would look like today - that would effectively invalidate the laws of logic by showing they don’t represent reality: effectively proving the laws of logic are a human construct - and not objective thing. 


    As this whole line of argument ends up refuting your whole presupposition, it’s odd that you even raise it.



    In the second part - you make an unsupported assertion.


    The laws of logic don’t say that something can’t be eternal. No where do they say that or imply it. That’s not what the laws of logic do.


    You can apply the laws to unicorns.


    Even science makes no claims that something can’t be eternal either. 


    So where this assertion is coming from, I don’t know.

  • Philosophy deals with various ways of interpreting various aspects of the world. Logic deals with the causal connections. These two are completely different domains and should not be mixed.

    From the philosophical point of view, Christianity, atheism, Islam, etc. all make sense. Philosophy is not about finding some hard truth about the world, it is about finding the way to look at the world in an illuminating way. Christians see the world from one perspective and atheists do from another - neither perspective is "wrong" per se.

    From the logical point of view, Christianity (and any other religion) as a method to describe the world does not make much sense, because it operates with entities that, according to our knowledge, either do not exist or exist and have no noticeable influence on our world. Hard atheism ("god does not exist") also logically is not sound, since non-existence of something, strictly speaking, can never be established - however, soft atheism ("god might exist or not, but the practical assumption to make is that it does not") is a very practical and logically understandable way to look at things. 

    If I wrote a book about rainbow unicorns floating in the sky above Antarctic, you would have no confusion as to how to categorize its content: you would say that I am making things up and, at best, wrote a fiction. Your confusion with regards to Christianity seems to come from the fact that the Bible, unlike the unicorn book, is widely acknowledged as a serious non-fiction book. But consider this: there are several billion Christians on Earth, and every one of them takes this book seriously because everyone else does... You see the problem, do you not? ;) It is a circular reasoning essentially.
    For all logical purposes, the Bible is the same as the Rainbow Unicorn book as far as its historical and scientific accuracy goes.

    However, philosophy, unlike logic, is not bound by facts and limitations. Philosophy can be literally anything, and even "Nothing is true" is still a philosophy. So philosophically something not making sense is a somewhat self-contradicting claim. 
  • @Ampersand

    Very well. I believe in God, not only because I have evidence (the bible), but also because it's the only worldview that makes sense.
  • @Gooberry
    I have no clue where any of that came from.
    Firstly, my “definition” of the laws of logic are based on the human structures and laws of logic that you and I both broadly agree upon.
    The laws of logic say you cant have a square circle - because humans came up with the concept of mutual exclusion - that if an object is A, it can’t also be B, if those are two orthogonal things.
    It seems to mostly make sense, no one disagrees, and thus far no one really has found an exception in reality.
    It makes no assumptions about what happened in the universe at any other time - other than being broadly supported by observation with the accurate statement that no one has ever seen an object being two mutually exclusive things at the same time.
    If you found a square circle tomorrow - even if we had no idea what that would look like today - that would effectively invalidate the laws of logic by showing they don’t represent reality: effectively proving the laws of logic are a human construct - and not objective thing. 
    As this whole line of argument ends up refuting your whole presupposition, it’s odd that you even raise it.

    In the second part - you make an unsupported assertion.
    The laws of logic don’t say that something can’t be eternal. No where do they say that or imply it. That’s not what the laws of logic do.
    You can apply the laws to unicorns.
    Even science makes no claims that something can’t be eternal either. 
    So where this assertion is coming from, I don’t know.
    Your definition of logic is based upon the fact that thus far, the universe has been found to be consistent. That's why things 'makes sense'. The philosophical question is: Why does everything make sense? Why is the universe consistent? 'Square' and 'Circle' are names we have attached to objects (see Plato's writings on objects), and logic is (according to you) the stuff we make in accordance to the consistency of these objects. According to you: The universe has been consistent in that a circle has never been a square, and therefore logic makes sense. We have a consistent universe. No matter how absurd the idea of a square circle might seem (to our reality), it's only because of the consistency of the universe that we can logically argue that you can't have a square circle.

    This begs the question of: has the universe always been consistent?

    Now, I haven't heard your explanation as to the origin of the universe, but so far most of the atheists I've asked have said that the universe has always existed. This begs a few questions, firstly: Why can't we have proof of it? Secondly, is eternity logical? How came it to be? And a lot of other questions. The answer most atheists gave me to this, is that the reality, nature, and form of the universe has not always been the same. That it once existed in a quite different way, where it would make sense that eternity is possible. They further argue that in this state of the universe, evidence would work different, and because what we now live in is only an explosion of space, time and reality from that primitive universe, we might never be able to prove the existence of this 'different' universe. (I may have some of the details wrong. To be honest, it didn't make sense...)

    Anyway, this leaves a gap in the previous argument, as that logic can't be based on something that is random. If we do live in a random universe, logic wouldn't exist. However, logic exists, therefore we don't live in a random universe, therefore the universe as we know it today is not eternal, therefore there has to be some sort of other eternal Being. I believe that Being to be God.

    Please correct me if the above arguments is incorrect.
  • @MayCaesar

    The definition of Philosphy : https://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy
    The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

    It definitely has something to do with logic.

    You have a different approach than many other atheists I know though, so I'm curious as to what you believe to be the definition of logic. What are the laws of logic?

    P.S Thanks for pointing out the different forms of atheism.

  • @Pieter

    Why do you think the universe has to be random if it was “eternal”?


    And why do you think that if the universe is not eternal - God must exist?


    The first seems a completely unrelated non-sequitor. And on its face doesn’t seem to make logical sense.


    The second seems to be assuming your own conclusion.

  • @Gooberry

    The object of this debate is not for me to recursively explain why I believe in God, but for you to persuade me that atheism makes sense.

    I've explained my reasoning very throroughly in the previous answer, if you don't agree with my reasoning, please refute my argument.
  • @Pieter

    your argument in your previous reply, was attempting to show my position is not accurate.

    It was based on a non-sequitor, that if the universe is eternal it must be random.

    I see no argument you have presented where you explain why this is true - and I am pointing out that it does not follow.

    This is - following the previous 3 replies - rebutting your objections.
  • AmpersandAmpersand 613 Pts
    edited September 2018
    Pieter said:
    @Ampersand

    Very well. I believe in God, not only because I have evidence (the bible), but also because it's the only worldview that makes sense.
    I don't believe in any god, not viewing the Bible as evidence and not assuming theism or any particular religious is the only worldview that makes sense.

    Obviously we hold different axiomatic beliefs, so as per my prior post we should look at the underlying assumptions of these beliefs and see if we can sway the other.

    Two initial points of clarification

    1) Is your argument for why it is "the only worldview that makes sense" the transcendental argument for god that is presented in the video in the OP? If not what supports this claim?

    2) Why do you view the Bible as valid evidence? I've seen various different arguments for this previously by a variety of people and would like to know which you hold to.
  • @Gooberry

    You didn't say why my argument is invalid. Please do us all the favor of logically explaining how eternity can be logical.
  • @Ampersand

    For your clarification:

    1. I largely agree with Dr. Bahnsen, especially about what he said about Christianity being the only worldview that makes sense. This is mostly because I don't see any way in which a seemingly random universe can produce such order and consistency without the thought of a Higher Power, or God. Furthermore, it's the only worldview that has a reasonable explanation that can be trusted, for the start of the universe. Lastly, also because I've spoken with several atheists, and none of them has ever been able to fully account for all the evidence needed for atheistic theories to be proved.

    2. So I will agree with you on this one, that from an atheistic point of view, the bible has just as much truth as any other fictional/religious book. However, I take the bible as being the truth because (as mentioned) Christianity is the only worldview that can account for the laws of logic, the start of the universe, order, etc etc. Furthermore, God has used His Spirit in my life to understand it, though I completely understand that this cannot be used as a valid argument, since any form of feeling is rarely connected to logic.
  • @Pieter

    I explained the issue with your argument twice now: it’s a non-sequitur. 


    To try and refute my position - you have presented an unsupported assumption that eternity must be random and thus can’t be logical (your argument now appears to be that eternity is illogical).


    The logical flaw in that argument is that it is a non-sequitor - eternity does not infer randomness or vice versa. 


    I’ve pointed that out twice (and now three times) - so when you ask me to provide a logical reasons as to why you’re refutation is not logical - look no further than that.



    Normally, in terms of burden of proof - you have to support your claim with an argument. I’ve done that for why logic is a human construct.


    Now, your only rebuttal involves you making claims I’ve pointed out you haven’t supported: In response, you have now demanded that I prove those same claims wrong. This is classic shifting the burden of proof - demanding that I prove your rebuttal wrong rather than you provide justification of why it is true.



    Nevertheless - you ask me to show why eternity is logical. Despite you not justifying your rebuttal and changing the burden of proof - I can do that.


    It really depends on what you mean by eternity.


    Do you mean an infinite amount of time? (Say, how far you could walk on a flat surface that lasts for ever).


    Do you mean a finite but unbounded amount of time? (How far you could walk on a sphere that has a finite surface area)


    Or do you mean the non existence of time? (How long it would take you to walk an infinite distance if time did not exist).



    for the first: If the universe is eternal operating on a never ending set of universal cycles of expansion and contraction. This Is a logical - not scientific -proposition as it provides a logical description of finite observation in an infinite set of time.


    For the second: the universe is eternal, because there is no point in time in which it does not exist, but also may exist for a finite amount of time. This is also a logical proposition - before the universe and

    After the universe become invalid propositions as the very words before and after are contingent on time existing.


    For the third - the universe is eternal outside of time, except for the small potion we inhabit which does experience time. This is identical to the “god is outside of time” argument, but with whatever flavour of deity you have chosen replaced with the universe.


    If this last one is illogical - then theism is illogical too.


    Now this is all based on basic propositions of what eternity is and what the universe is - if you change those propositions the answer may change - that’s the beauty of logic. So really to show that eternity is logical or not: we first have to agree on what those propositions are - if you won’t tell me what you think are the correct propositions are - then there’s not much more I can really do.


    It seems your approach in this context is assuming your conclusion: you implicitly assume all your terms in such a way that those assumptions preclude God not existing - then Show that with those assumptions - god must exist.

    Hence you are making assumptions and assertions about how the universe must work, or what eternity must be if God doesn’t exist, and setting these assertions up in such a way that it creates a contradiction: then pointing out the contradiction you just manufactured to claim that Atheism is wrong.

    This is not a valid argument as a result.

  • In my eyes, logic is fundamentally a chain of irrefutable causal connections: "if A, then B". Granted, the chain can be continued infinitely in both directions, so at some point some assumption has to be made. Those assumptions, however, are not completely arbitrary and have, in turn, to not contradict any obvious causal connections.

    In any case, logic and philosophy are very different things. You could say that logic itself is a sort of philosophy, but, in general, a philosophy does not have to exist within the logical framework.
  • Pieter said:
    @Ampersand

    For your clarification:

    1. I largely agree with Dr. Bahnsen, especially about what he said about Christianity being the only worldview that makes sense. This is mostly because I don't see any way in which a seemingly random universe can produce such order and consistency without the thought of a Higher Power, or God. Furthermore, it's the only worldview that has a reasonable explanation that can be trusted, for the start of the universe. Lastly, also because I've spoken with several atheists, and none of them has ever been able to fully account for all the evidence needed for atheistic theories to be proved.

    2. So I will agree with you on this one, that from an atheistic point of view, the bible has just as much truth as any other fictional/religious book. However, I take the bible as being the truth because (as mentioned) Christianity is the only worldview that can account for the laws of logic, the start of the universe, order, etc etc. Furthermore, God has used His Spirit in my life to understand it, though I completely understand that this cannot be used as a valid argument, since any form of feeling is rarely connected to logic.
    Well as you state point 2 relies on "Christianity is the only worldview that can account for the laws of logic" and that is in essence point 1, we can ignore point 2 and just focus on point 1.

    You state that: "I largely agree with Dr. Bahnsen, especially about what he said about Christianity being the only worldview that makes sense. This is mostly because I don't see any way in which a seemingly random universe can produce such order and consistency without the thought of a Higher Power, or God."

    However Dr Bahnsen's argument that you say you are agreeing with and your argument, at least as I read it as there's not a great amount of detail, seem to be different. To me you seem to be making the argument of "Look how complex the human eye/the delicate balance of planets in the solar system/whatever is, IMO only a deity could have done that." Correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but that's how I read it and it is in essence the teleological argument from god.

    On the other hand Bahnsen explicitly makes the transcendental argument for god. This argument essentially goes:

    1) Logic and morality are objective realities and universal laws rather than subjective concepts created 
    2) These non-materialist laws cannot have a materialist explanation so therefore they must have been created by a supernatural explanation - god
    3) Therefore god exists.

    Of course the main problem with this argument in general is you can never prove step 1, something Bahnsen never even attempts to do and just takes as an apriori assumption then quickly moves on from. In fact logically proving that logic is objective would out of necessity require circular reasoning as until you have proven that logic can be objective you can only use logic subjectively which would never meet the required standard.

    A secondary problem that again Bahnsen sidesteps, making a few unevidenced off the cuff remarks, is why the supernatural explanation would be his particular Christian sects conception of Jehova rather than any of the infinite number of hypothetical deities that could exist. He states around minute 8 about how other religions defy reason or are incoherent but doesn't provide a jot of evidence, and doesn't even address the fact that worship or public knowledge isn't a precondition of a hypothetical god's existence so there are literally infinite other possibilities. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch