CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

Canuckfish · 10-01-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow) Well you should make that clearer because it comes across dishonest and like you are twisting the thoughts and meaning of your intened "victim" because you don't state weather prescriptive or descriptive

No need to clarify as I mean both.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow) I ame to the conclusion that the idea of a deity is highly improbable more likely impossible. I am not my own god because there are no gods. am I open to true evidence for a god that you undenyably prove his existance once and for all sure but the stuff that every one offers as proof is anicdotal or deceptive or ignorant.

Now this conclusion that you came to - Did you use the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic to come to that conclusion. If so, you came to the conclusion borrowing the foundation for reason from MY worldview. You used the Christian worldview in refuting the Christian worldview.

I'm sure that you will protest at that notion but tell me, what is YOUR foundation for reason. How do you justify the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic in YOUR worldview?

Another point. Neutrality is a myth. Everyone evaluates EVERYTHING they encounter based on their already held beliefs - their presuppositions. Any evidence I produce you will evaluate based on your presupposition that God does not exist, just as I will evaluate anything you say based on my presuppositions that God does in fact exist. The only way that our argument can be satisfied is by evaluating each other's presuppositions to see who can support the preconditions for intelligibility. In other words, who can support logic and reason itself.

My presupposition is that God exists and that His Word is true. His word gives us the foundations for logic (universal, abstract, invariants). His word also explains origins, science and the human condition.

Now you may correct me if I am wrong, but since God is not your ultimate authority, I imagine that your own human reason is your ultimate authority. This is what I meant by being your own God. Even if you could be reasonably convinced of God's existence, what would be proven to you would not be God, since according to your worldview your reason would have higher authority than God, and can work without His existence.

With that said, I challenge you to prove the validity of your human reason WITHOUT God.

When you realize that it cannot be done. I hope that you fall to your knees and thank the one true God of Christianity who makes even your ability to reason possibe.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow) Peace Be With You

Thanks for the kind sentiment. I was wondering though what exactly do you mean by that.

P.S. I had a peak at that other forum. I hope you dont call me the same things here as you did there.

10-01-2006, 02:05 PM	#15
Canuckfish USER INFO » Status: Illusion Posts: 17 Joined: Sep 2006 Currently: Offline	Re: I found this interesting. Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow) Well you should make that clearer because it comes across dishonest and like you are twisting the thoughts and meaning of your intened "victim" because you don't state weather prescriptive or descriptive No need to clarify as I mean both. Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow) I ame to the conclusion that the idea of a deity is highly improbable more likely impossible. I am not my own god because there are no gods. am I open to true evidence for a god that you undenyably prove his existance once and for all sure but the stuff that every one offers as proof is anicdotal or deceptive or ignorant. Now this conclusion that you came to - Did you use the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic to come to that conclusion. If so, you came to the conclusion borrowing the foundation for reason from MY worldview. You used the Christian worldview in refuting the Christian worldview. I'm sure that you will protest at that notion but tell me, what is YOUR foundation for reason. How do you justify the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic in YOUR worldview? Another point. Neutrality is a myth. Everyone evaluates EVERYTHING they encounter based on their already held beliefs - their presuppositions. Any evidence I produce you will evaluate based on your presupposition that God does not exist, just as I will evaluate anything you say based on my presuppositions that God does in fact exist. The only way that our argument can be satisfied is by evaluating each other's presuppositions to see who can support the preconditions for intelligibility. In other words, who can support logic and reason itself. My presupposition is that God exists and that His Word is true. His word gives us the foundations for logic (universal, abstract, invariants). His word also explains origins, science and the human condition. Now you may correct me if I am wrong, but since God is not your ultimate authority, I imagine that your own human reason is your ultimate authority. This is what I meant by being your own God. Even if you could be reasonably convinced of God's existence, what would be proven to you would not be God, since according to your worldview your reason would have higher authority than God, and can work without His existence. With that said, I challenge you to prove the validity of your human reason WITHOUT God. When you realize that it cannot be done. I hope that you fall to your knees and thank the one true God of Christianity who makes even your ability to reason possibe. Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow) Peace Be With You Thanks for the kind sentiment. I was wondering though what exactly do you mean by that. P.S. I had a peak at that other forum. I hope you dont call me the same things here as you did there.