Billions or Thousands my dear VK4 - Page 2

I'll take a peek as soon as I have a few moments.

Excellent!

I will watch more of it when I can, but just at a glance, it is typical of the ongoing argument, IMO.  For me, what is far more relevant than the fragmented answers and popular theories on each side of the argument actually precedes all of that, which is to say that much of the way the argument takes shape is based upon how the question(s) is framed, and how much you expect to be able to assert with the corresponding answers.  Case in point here, "evolution vs. God" in the video.  I do not happen to view the argumentin terms of that framework.

Case in point here, "evolution vs. God" in the video.  I do not happen to view the argumentin terms of that framework.


I would have to disagree here Carlin and I will extrapolate why? Which the subject that I study: You see only the Bible makes knowledge possible NOT evolution, so the fact that unbelievers do know things all that does proves the Bible is true; and all does it proves they are wrong. Only the Bible provides the preconditions for the intelligibility of man’s experience and reasoning. If the Bible were not true, it would be impossible to prove anything. You see in order for our reasoning my dear Carlin or thoughts to make sense – in order for our experiences in universe to be intelligible to make sense certain things would have to already be true and what I would call preconditions of intelligibility. And what are some of these things? Example, laws of logic, in order for us to think properly there would have to already be existence laws of logic, in order for us to do science there already have to be certain things in place, you already believe that your senses reliable when you do science that is preconditions of intelligibility. And that is why I don’t agree with you Carlin when you said that you do not happen to view the argument terms of that framework "evolution vs. God"… And so my argument for Biblical creation and for that matter, for any portion of the Bible - for the Bible as a world view is that it must be true because if it were not true you couldn’t prove anything is true, only the Bible provides those preconditions of intelligibility. There are certain things we rely upon in order to know anything…We rely upon laws of logic; for example, to make thinking possible, we rely upon certain degree of orderliness in nature which is called uniformity. Btw not be confused with uniformitarianism, I don’t believe in uniformitarianism because it is idea rates and conditions have be constant throughout time or more less and so uniformitarianism person considers there weren’t had been world wide flood because its not today. And me myself and I believe conditions change; the Bible tells us conditions change. But the way which God upholds the universe what I would call the laws of nature do not arbitrary change, gravity work the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow but conditions change, it might be rainy this weekend but be sunny next week, conditions change but the laws of nature do not arbitrary change. That is what I am talking about “uniformity”…the laws of nature. And now I want to get to the point here Carlin: “morality” absolute morality by which we make ethical judgments and we know what is right and wrong; and in order for us to have those things the Bible would have to be true because those things are all contingent upon God as reveal in the scriptures. And so one by one here about “morality” why would we have absolute morality in the evolutionary universe? If we just an animals, well animals do what they want, they amoral, they don't have a moral code, well if we just animals why do we have absolute moral code? It doesn’t even make sense; why oat we behave in certain way? Why should we behave in certain way? Those kinds of words don’t even make sense…in the evolutionary universe. On the other hand it makes sense in a Biblical creation world view because God created us, like he did that back in Genesis btw; so you can see how those all things go back to Genesis “literal Genesis” and because God made us - made us in his image and we are responsible to God for our actions…absolute morality make sense in the Biblical world view……Carlin, what about laws of logic? Laws of logic are the correct standard of reasoning, why would there be a standard reasoning in a chance universe? Everybody just have different kind of thoughts who is to say who is right and who is wrong, it doesn’t make sense but laws of logic make sense in a Christian world view because they reflect God’s thinking…We Carlin have correct standard “correct thinking”, because we have Biblical God…God is our correct standard for everything…..Carlin my point here is not that evolutionist don’t believe in these things because they do! Evolutionists do believe in laws of logic “uniformity” and “morality” but those things do not make sense in the evolutionary universe and especially for VK4 lol….So they are relying upon something that on there own world view would have no rational foundation, it would have no good reason – no justification on there world view…And so just for example VK4 can say wait a minute I don’t even believe the Bible and I can use laws of logic and I know - but fact is if his world view were true, “he shouldn’t” he shouldn’t able to use laws of logic because it doesn’t make sense giving his / evolutionist world view. And I am going to do is internal critique of VK4 showing that he is relying upon principals that actually contingent upon Biblical God, his world view is inconsistent, it blows it-self up. And the good illustration we have two competing world views, we have Biblical world view and secular world view, but what we going to find when we exam this up close when Biblical world view make sense it’s going to go some where - it goes to lead to knowledge; and the secular world view when we exam it, it’s not going rationally work – it’s not going to go anywhere…it cannot lead to knowledge. Carlin, I hope you understand why I didn’t agree with you. Shtal.
 

Shtal, what you consider deep thought is not much more than the effort it takes to do the mental gymnastics of making the unbelievable believable.  Each one of your arguments is based on a logical fallacy that is puked out of the mouths of those you've come to trust.  Ken, Kent, Eric, Sye and Comfort, the ever love banana man.  Do you know why you like them so much?  Because they do the mental gymnastics for you and you still stuggle to understand it all.  You fail and you know it.  Do you understand that it's no different than lying?

As a matter of fact, a thought crossed my evil mind just a few days ago Shtal, and I forgot about it until just now.  You and others are always saying that our laws are based on the Bible, right?  Well, what if we made lying a punishable offense, in both civil and criminal court?  I kind of wish we did, because each and every one of your heros would be in jail and penniless, convicted of lying in a court of law, based on real evidence.  I wonder if you could get a judge to deem your mental gymnastics truthful.  Just think about that for about a minute Shtal.

Shtal, you're all over the map, lol. Listen, if I weren't already familiar with the rational arguments you are referring to, there's no way I'd understand them from your post. Best off focusing on one a time, IMO. There is merit to some of what you are saying, meaning that the arguments are valid. I think where you are at a disadvantage is that it seems as though you have only been provided with one side. Most of what you just spoke of is philosophy, but it's all jumbled. The way you present the information is the way someone might do so to encourage a congregation of people whom already believe. As for everyone else, I can assure you that no deductive arguments exist for those claims. The best we can do is to provide valid inductive arguments which demonstrate a reasonable amount of explanatory power, allowing for said beliefs. As for the whole show, it actually requires three seperate rational arguments to allow for the existence of the God of the Bible, and by no means are they the only game in town.

Carlin wrote: I think where you are at a disadvantage is that it seems as though you have only been provided with one side.



Carlin, I was thinking what you said “providing one side” and I will try extrapolating both sides here honestly…I think you are correct and I will do my best, especially when Ruger1 encouraged me.
Now I will start with an example; I will be picturing a little island as Biblical Presuppositions.
 
The Bible is true,
Absolutes,
Laws of Logic,
Laws of Morality,
Uniformity & Induction,
 
And my seculars friends on there own little island with Secular Presuppositions.
 
Naturalism,
Empiricism,
Relativism,
Neutrality,
Bible is irrelevant to science,
 
At first it may seem we have no common ground, there is no neutral ground I already said that in my other post. But you see the point is secular presuppositions are sinking sand, they will not support a cogent world view, only the Bible can do that, only the Bible is the rock upon on which we all must stand. And so when that sand dissolves away, unbelievers left standing on nothing. And VK4 may say; Shtal are you saying all non-Christian world views are irrational? And my answer is yes; all non-Christian world views are ultimately irrational, they may have pockets of rationality within them, nobody is…just, well there might be some people totally insane, but for the most part people have degrees of rationality. But ultimately they can’t support there own notions you see; and so what this unbeliever going to do? He can’t stand on his own world view. He is going to do this! Unbelievers will stand on Christian’s presuppositions when it suits them, because they have to, they couldn’t get anywhere without these Christians presuppositions like laws of logic, unbelievers do accept and use laws of logic and doing so they are standing on Christians grounds and they will be able to this btw, because they do know in there heart of hearts Biblical God…God has hardwire into all of us knowledge of his law, his moral law. Laws of logic, so and so forth…And we able to do that, we able to reason because God planted that within us, but the point is Carlin, unbelievers standing on Christian ground and denying Christianity; example like VK4, he is self-denial and when I point this out to him, I am pointing out he is self-denial. His first responds would be to deny that he is self-denial…and VK4 will say oh no laws of logic are not Christian presupposition, they are secular or maybe neutral and he will reply Carlin, “that after all” he believe in laws of logic and he will say I even don’t believe in the Bible, but of course that’s not a good argument, I am point out if the Bible were not true there would be no bases of laws of logic. So what I want to do is point out his inconsistency and I wanted to point out that he is standing on Christian ground, he is standing on God’s ground, he either needs get saved Carlin or he should stop trespassing and you know what VK4? get your own laws of logic, stop borrowing God’s. I pray he will be saved but that’s between him and God, I just pointing out his inconsistency. You see Carlin, Seculars standing on Christian ground using God’s laws of logic and trying to argue against Christian position and that is not going to work; his position is self-refuting. And to illustrate this I like to zoom in on the few of these preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic, uniformity of nature and absolute morality. And in case of absolute morality…If God created us; he has the right to set the rules, otherwise why not make our own rules? And that is pretty obvious Carlin, isn’t? And in Christian world view God is good and the standard of goodness but if it is just “re-arrange chemicals” why not do what you want? And btw on creator side it has to be Biblical God, because this is the God who created us and who has revealed himself to us in his word “Bible”…it has to be Biblical God, can’t be some other.
VK4 may say you don’t need God, “Morality is what brings the most happiness to the most people” and that is pretty common responds from atheist camp. But some may say that is right we have to be concern happiness of others and in which I would say yes! In a Christian world view, but point is in evolutionary universe why should I be concern about happiness of others? If it just “re-arranged chemicals” why should I be concern about their happiness? Happiness is just chemical reaction in the brain if you are evolutionist, so why should I try achieving that particular chemical reaction and not another, let say pain, maybe what’s good bring the most pain to the most people, right Carlin! This is totally arbitrary…and totally impractical, how can you possible measure this? And how do you know what’s bring the most happiness to the most people. Maybe for instance like the moral code which is simply electrical impulses in the brain, but if it just a section of your brain and if it just electrical impulses in the brain then why should I follow it? I have other impulses in the brain too that I don’t follow, I don’t follow all of my impulses and that is probably a good thing….lol…right? Sometimes I may incline to do things that maybe not good. This would not be morality if it is just impulses in the brain, it is not universal laws and my brain Carlin is different than yours anyway, I have different impulses, and so what’s good for me would be different what’s good for you. You can’t have objective morality that way. You see Carlin laws of morality are conventions adopted for the benefit of society, there is something we all agree to them and so you know we need these laws to maintain society, why? That is arbitrary…well because without that we have disorder, so? It is evolutionary universe right? But we need these laws benefit from acting what? Like animals? Is that where the truth is! But in evolutionary world view that is all we are right? Animals…. And one last thing for my conclusion here…Let’s take Naturalism for example, many evolutionists are naturalists, they believe nature is all that there is and natural attempts to use logic and reason to support his/her position but there is a problem, logic is not part of nature, you can’t point your telescope somewhere and see law of logic, they are not natural and they are immaterial…So everything that exists is part of nature is material, you can’t have laws of logic, so VK4 is trying to use something that cannot exist in his own position to support his own position to argue against Christianity, the fact that he able to make an argument at all proves that he is wrong. I am not saying VK4 have to profess to believe in God to use laws of logic but you do need Biblical God to have laws of logic. Thank you for reading…Shtal.
 

Shtal, I think that you may be unreasonably expecting others to accept some of the theist presuppositions upon which your argument is built.  It seems as though a large part of your focus in the last several threads is the idea that logic cannot exist outside of a Biblical purview, one which you assert, but are actually a long way from successfully substantiating. No one has been come close to being able to prove such a thing, in fact. What I think is a reasonable point of departure for your argument would be perhaps to suggest that rational thought may not be consistent with a materialist or naturalist world view. That particular argument waged from your Christian worldview centers around the idea of the potential incompatibility of rational thought and determinism.

Carlin, I would have to disagree with you, you see the debate over Biblical creation is a lot like a debate on the existence of air. Can you imagine Carlin, me and VK4 start arguing whether or NOT air exists? What would the critic of air say? Can you imagine VK4 making this illiquid argument that air does not exist, all the wild breeding air? And expecting that we can hear his arguments transmitting through the air? That would be kind of strange wouldn’t…you see critic of air must used air in order to make a case against air. That fact he able to argue at all proves that he is wrong; (you see) likewise, the critic of the Bible must use biblical presuppositions in order to argue against the Bible. The fact is VK4 able to make an argument at all proves that he is wrong. Because you see the tares are standing on Christian grounds using God’s laws of logic to try arguing against Christian position and that is not going to work; is it Carlin? That VK4’s position is self-refuting.
 
And I want to give little of some examples about Relativism that I study my dear Carlin I think it is relative what I am talking here…relativism is a belief that all things are relative and there are no absolutes and you may hear VK4 may say, that is your truth but is not my truth and so on and so forth. Which is really dumb thing to say in my book of judgments because truth is truth and it’s not subjective, the truth is objective but VK4 may say there are no absolutes and of course the question I would ask him? Are you absolutely certain? You see Carlin the statement that there are no absolutes is an absolute statement, so if its truth it’s false, there for its false…And another good example would be Empiricism, many evolutionists’ are empiricists they believe that all truth claims answer by empirical observation, sometime supplement with the need for logical consistency. I believe in empirical methods, I believe some truth claims are answered in empirically, I believe in the methods of science but not all truth claims answered empirically…you couldn’t answer a question life after death empirically; I take that an authority of scripture that there is life after death. But VK4 may say oh no, if you can’t see it, touch it, smell it or whatever it’s not real, it’s not true. I would ask VK4 how do you know the statement is itself is true? How do you know all truth claims are proved by empirical observation? Did you proved that by empirical observation?...lol…no you can’t observed truth claims, that even doesn’t make sense, you can’t see truth claim VK4, its obstruct. And so the notion that all truth claims proved by empirical observation cannot be proved by empirical observation and there for had to be rejected on its own standard. Empiricism refutes its-self like relativism…VK4’s world view blows himself up, all I have to do light the match and let it go…lol…it will circle back around and destroy itself…Btw Carlin the Biblical world view is the only world view that won’t do that. The Biblical world view is the only one that you apply to it-self…self consistence and does not blow it-self up only secular world view do.
 
And my point is if I ask question to VK4? How do you decide “right from “wrong? Because apart from the Biblical God, morality can only be relative; but people cannot live that way. People know in there heart of hearts morality is not relative…But VK4 may say oh come-on - everybody knows right from wrong…To which I will say to him, yeah that’s because God has revealed himself to all human beings and so in our consciousness we know right from wrong but my point is in evolutionary world view why would there be such a thing right and wrong and how can you possibly know about it?...Example Adolf Hitler thought it would be benefit to his society to kill Jews but I wouldn’t think that any of us on this forum would say that is really good, you couldn’t say that society is evil if this was definition of morality…because every society would have different moral code, so they are not laws if there are just conventions. And my other thoughts for this writing - again is laws of logic, I want it to make my point more clear Carlin…Laws of logic - these are a reflection of the way God thinks and the way he expects us to think. But VK4 may say oh how do you know how God thinks? And my answer is God has revealed himself, he revealed some of his thoughts in his word…I don’t know all of God’s thoughts, I know some of them because he revealed them in his word. That is why it has to be Biblical God and not some God of our own invention. You see Carlin, laws of logic are from God’s nature and we made in God image and so we instinctually know these laws of logic, we act on them, like the law of non-contradictions…You see Carlin, God does not deny himself, Bible tells us in (2 Timothy 2:13) If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. Or in other words he cannot contradict himself and all truth is in God (Colossians 2:3) In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And there for truth will not contradict itself. And again this is why it has to be biblical God; it can’t be the God of Quran for example - because Allah does contradict himself; the Quran endorses gospel of Jesus and contradicts the gospel Jesus, by saying Jesus was not crucified and not the son of God, so you see it has to be Biblical God, the God who cannot deny himself that we read in scriptures. Now Carlin I will try to answer some of things you said, please be patient with me, I am trying to concentrate with my writing here. What are laws of logic anyway Carlin? How you ever thought about that? Little bit abstract is in it? Can you touch a law of logic? Can you accidentally swallow one? No because they are immaterial they are not made of atoms! They don’t have a location in space, you can’t pull law of logic out of refrigerator, they are universal meaning they apply everywhere, it’s not like laws of logic apply in US but not in Europe. The way I understand is they are universal, they apply everywhere! They are invariant meaning they don’t change with time…laws of logic it’s not like they apply on weekends but not during middle of the week, they apply all the time, they are invariant and they are abstract because they deal with concepts. A law of logic is immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities which govern all possible conceptual relationships. What I learned by studying is they describe Carlin how concepts relate to each other and if you think about it Carlin laws of logic are contingent upon the biblical God…The biblical God can account for all of these properties; God’s thoughts would necessarily be immaterial, God is immaterial being, he is spirit which you know that already and most things I said…lol…God’s thoughts would be universal because God is on the present, his thoughts uphold entire universe, therefore contradiction can’t happened anywhere, for example. God’s thinking would be invariant because God himself does not change of time and therefore his thoughts do not either, and they would be abstract because all thoughts are abstract, all thoughts are conceptional, you see Carlin the Biblical God can make sense of the fact that we have laws of logic, one correct standard of reasoning, that all human beings must ad hear to if we going to be rational and if we going to come to the truth, but other world views cannot account for laws of logic my dear Carlin…Btw thanks for reading it, took me some effort to write this correctly in English. Shtal.