I will play by your rules Vince, but understand that it is for communication purposes, the answers could be written within a few lines in truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceField
It’s a common misconception that the atheist or naturalist worldview is grounded in logic, while the Christian worldview is based in mere fantasy and belief. The reality is that the atheist/naturalist worldview in which nothing exists beyond matter and nature (i.e. God, the soul, etc.) is self-defeating, irrational, internally inconsistent and contradictory, actually requiring the atheist/naturalist to steal from the Christian worldview to even make an argument for their own belief system!
|
Stating that something is a misconception is already you - cheating to win here.
I have said previously that someone without ever having heard of "GOD" i.e an island society would not automatically conclude that one was required for the world to keep spinning.
Earthquakes are because we live atop a giant turtle etc etc.
You have not proven misconception.
Quote:
The atheist/naturalist worldview does not provide the preconditions for intelligibility, reasoning, science, natural laws, morality, human freedom and dignity- these immaterial and abstract elements of reality cannot exist if the universe is nothing more than matter in motion. Thus the very proposition of an argument for the naturalist worldview is proof that the naturalist worldview is false, as the atheist must employ logic and reasoning to argue, and again, these immaterial aspects of reality would not exist if the universe was strictly material.
|
Your looking at this from a human viewpoint but the world would keep ticking nicely without people because of nature - what is nature?
The way in which we use nature as a term is probably how we should use God. An energy that exists.
There is no logic in picturing a Man-God with two arms etc etc just as "mother nature" is not really a woman.
Logically the God from the Bible cannot exist - the logic within the Bible or any religious text have points of fault & paradox. God/nature in creating all of the things that we can see would surely create an irrefutable text?
Morality or any human concept is just that - animals kill or be killed, predator or prey & they do so because it is nature. Perhaps mankind constantly think themselves in & then out of problems to solve?
We also see consequences so laws & rules are logically issued to thwart future events.
Immaterial reality would be different to a Dolphin using sonar or Dogs using scent marking so it a human construct for us.
Quote:
The atheist worldview cannot account for intelligibility. In order for our experience to make sense, we need to think properly, which requires the laws of logic. A random chance universe of matter in motion doesn’t allow for an ultimate immaterial standard of reasoning. To the atheist, there shouldn’t even be the same laws of logic between any two people if thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain, as everyone has different brains undergoing different chemical reactions. A correct and objective standard of thinking doesn’t make sense in a chance and purposeless universe.
|
Sorry but you only know of Jesus because you were told about him surely?
We think in certain ways because of education, culture & environment.
It's why Robin Hood is never depicted as a Buddhist - it's not a concept required or realised in rainy Nottingham.
The universe is not without purpose - everything tries to live & survive. Things perfect themselves biologically, socially or mentally.
The Tiger learning to use the long grass as camouflage would have been via trial & error.
Quote:
Without an omniscient source of knowledge, there are no grounds for which anything can be known. One must presuppose their senses and memory are reliable to have knowledge, and yet this assumption cannot be accounted for in the atheist worldview where everything is just matter in motion and in constant change. There would be no way to know that your brain is conveying intelligibility in a meaningful and correct way. Assuming that your senses are accurate is begging the question. The atheist has no philosophical basis for trusting their own reasoning. Even if you had 99% of all possible knowledge, the 1% you didn’t have could completely change the 99% that you think you know, and so the naturalist has no sufficient foundation for knowledge and truth.
|
Why does someone require a philosophical basis for reasoning?
I walk through a forest & find animals drinking from a stream - I decide to pick a spot out of sight & ambush one animal & butcher it for meat to feed my family.
Problem solving 101 - where is the need for philosophical concepts?
As I return a few weeks later I pick another spot for an ambush but this time a bear attacks me, kills me & feeds it's cubs. Perhaps the bears go on to survive & my family starve or my sons might be more careful when hunting due to my error.
Quote:
I’ve heard the argument from many atheists that mankind should be rational, but from the atheist worldview, where the universe is simply atoms bumping into each other with no underlying purpose or meaning, there is no obligation or reason to be rational. If naturalism was true and thoughts were merely chemical reactions guided by natural laws, there would be no mind and no objective reasoning or freedom of thought. If naturalism was true, there would be no rationality, there would just be whatever people end up thinking and doing resulting from these unguided natural processes. Thus the materialist who wants to be rational has already departed from his materialism and concedes his position.
|
As above objective reasoning or freedom of thought can come from learning & adapting to situations. A group work together for safety & security & all agree to laws to maintain a level of trust.
For heavens sake do you not realise that there are still tribes out there in the world with no western or eastern concepts what so ever. They are certainly not Christian by default - why not if it is the natural way of life?
Quote:
Materialists believe that everything happens by chance and there is no personal control over the universe. They adopt a contradictory position, however, upon assuming the uniformity of nature, as there is no basis for assuming that what has happened in the past will happen in the future in a random chance universe. All human reasoning and science presupposes uniformity, but the atheist’s worldview does not account for this and they must beg the question and rely on an unquestioned philosophical bias to hold this belief. The atheist’s presupposition of the uniformity of nature is contradictory to naturalism.
|
I see some misrepresentation here - straw man if you will.
Children with no spiritual or political ideals learn that if they hit a table with a spoon - a sound is made. That is personal control is it not?
Science records what happens when you do _ _ _ _ it is observational. Once something surprising happens they investigate why. It's how vaccines are created.
Quote:
The idea that empiricism is the ultimate standard of truth and that all truth claims are proved by empirical observation is another self-defeating view, as that itself is a truth claim which is by nature immaterial and thus cannot be tested or proven by science or empirical observation. Empiricism refutes itself. Science cannot account for the concept of truth. How does the empiricist know that all truth claims are proved by empirical observation? Did they prove that by empirical observation? Of course not, truth cannot be observed, it is immaterial and abstract.
|
Your talking yourself into a corner that YOU feel comfortable living in.
Take fingerprints as an example, how many people are in prison because of fingerprints matching the crime scene. If by some new technology we discover that fingerprints are actually unreliable then the justice system would have to change - unless it were kept secret.
You can't call on God in the same way in which people call for Superman ONCE - not a single time has this ever happened.
Science can be wrong but they also back up claims if you choose to look.
Quote:
Aside from the fact that you can’t make sense of evidence within the atheist worldview, as it lacks the preconditions for intelligibility as I’ve already demonstrated, evidence itself can never resolve a worldview conflict anyway, as a person’s worldview tells them how to interpret the evidence. Thus using evidence to prove the naturalist worldview to a Christian, for example, is the atheist’s folly, not to mention the fact that the atheist contradicts their own position as they do so.
|
This is just a mess of a mess - you wish to believe in God - well done.
Someone who doesn't is none of your business, why did Christianity need to be brought to the Heathens?
Control - you follow logic blindly via "faith" in a religion, that's a personal choice but many a conman has promised goods & services that ultimately never arrive - where is God?
A religious mind is happy to box themselves into a corner - whatever floats your boat but you perhaps do yourself a disservice in the process.
Those who don't believe in Dinosaurs or blood transfusions are closing their minds to the very creation they seem to appreciate through worship of it.
Humans are special but we are also a curse - we push & push to see what is next or we are afraid of it.
A caliphate or global inquisition may cause global suffering or a genetically engineered virus or creature.
God could correct both courses but ultimately either scenario would play out in full - it should be impossible to contemplate the creator of EVERYTHING but I am confident that whatever it is would not require sacrifice or worship.
It should be beyond human emotions - just as nature is.
.