Debate 1 (02 SEP 2010) - Part 02
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2010
- This was the first debate the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics have been involved with, and the first religious debate at UNCG to my knowledge.
Topic: "Does the Christian god exist?"
The sides:
Shepard's Fellowship of Greensboro
A Sovereign Grace Baptist Church
- Sye Ten Bruggencate
- Pastor Dustin Segers
www.sfofgso.org/
UNCG Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics
- Joshua Deaton
- Phillip Drum
The debate was moderated by Pastor Sterling J VanDerwerker
@JesusforLife2 how do you know you have reason to trust your senses, or your "Christian worldview" without circular reasoning and asserting your worldview to be true first?
"they cannot justify their worldview apart from God" says who Sye?
How can a Christian appeal to revelation without trusting his senses first?
if Sye is intellectually honest, he has to admit the POSSIBILITY of someting being true is not the same as it being true (and cant be used as evidence)
@spiritua Its an internal critique of atheism. If we stand in the atheist's worldview where God doesn't exist and we evolved into our current state, we have no justification for our senses to be accurate and correct in perceiving external reality. If we stand in the Christian worldview where God exist, we have a reason to trust our sense perception as accurate for God created us in his image. I dont see where he said the possibility equals being true.
@dprg101
I was literally thinking, as I watched, "gee, I wonder if Paul's seen this"! ;-)
Plus Sye stole the "shake up drink cans" illustration from Doug Wilson.
@spirit "asserting your worldview to be true first" You did read that I said it is an internal critique right? That means you accept the validity of a worldview and follow it to it's conclusions. IF God of the Bible exists, we can trust our five senses because he has made us in his image and processed the particulars of reality for us. IF atheism is true, we have no justification for our five senses to be accurate or anything in the external world.
@JesusforLife2 I read the words "internal critique" though I dont know what it means, though it doesnt sound like a normal and logical way to examine something, you cannot examine something after you assert it, and then say its true.
Let me ask you, do you admit that without asserting your weltanschauung in advance by circular reasoning, your worldview is NOT defensible?
Also, I appreciate it if you don't build a strawman of atheism.
@JesusforLife2 "If I assert I have five fingers then examine my hand, I can say its true. So that objection makes no sense."
That's the problem, YOU DON'T NEED TO ASSERT your hand has five fingers in order to make the argument, it's redundant and unnecessary, you can show your hand has 5 fingers WITHOUT ASSERTING IT. WHereas you cannot do the same with your circular weltanschauung, you NEED to assert it and never question it. Btw, you CAN'T SAY ITS FALSE after you assert it (case rested)
@JesusforLife2 also, if by your standards you "accept the validity of atheism" (even as hypothetical for the sake of argument), then you cannot then say its not true in the same argument. That would be a contradiction. You cannot accept something, and then say you don't.
Either you examine something without asserting it first, or you examine it after accepting it. It works for both sides. (unless you're an inconsistent liar, which I suspect)
@spiritualbully Like you said, you dont have any idea what an internal critique is or what a reductio ad absurdum is. I suggest actually learning what it is before playing the expert and claiming victory. When you act more mature instead of full of pride, talk to me.
@sp It is a normal/logical way to expose absurdity in a worldview. It is useful for a Reductio ad absurdum to show internal inconsistentcy, incoherence, and arbitrariness. If I assert I have five fingers then examine my hand, I can say its true. So that objection makes no sense.
His opening statement address your question about asserting a worldview.
I dont accept atheism. I pretend its premises are correct and show the absurdity if it was correct. Thanks for personally insulting me btw
@JesusforLife2 I know what reductio ad absurdism is, but you are free to tell me what internal critique is.
Either way, you're the one who needs to learn logic, one cannot "hypothetically accept" something, and then in the same argument say it is false. You also need to learn what atheism is, or what we believe, rather than tell us what we do or make a strawman about our weltanschauung.
I don't play expert and I don't need to claim victory, you're the one that's speechless.
'futile speculations'...they then go on to philosophize anyway, 'man goes on to prove that white is black, black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing....
@JesusforLife2 you are not standing in the A's weltanschauung if you put words in our mouth and say what our views are NOT. So that is dishonest. When you can actually describe what we believe, the discussion can continue.
If possibility doesn't equal being true, than he cannot use that as an argument it's true, but he never admits that, hoping people will confuse and forget.
@JesusforLife2 atheism is far from internally inconsistent. you only say it is based on your strawman and holding us to a standard you do not to yourself.