How to Respond to Atheist concerning universals

[ChristianTrader]

I have had some discussions on an atheist Board. I received a response that I am not quite sure how to answer.

[b:413787bab7]
Me: There is a need for a Christian theistic worldview if you want to allow for universals.
[/b:413787bab7]
[i:413787bab7]
Him:
That is possibly the dumbest thing you've ever said (and that's saying a lot).

Plenty of non-Christian "worldviews" could allow for universals.

Easy examples (to prove that you are totally wrong):
Judiasm
Islam
[/i:413787bab7]

I was thinking of asking him why he thought that the other two religions could account for universals, but I would kinda like to figure out how to positively refute his position.

Thanks for any help.

Hermonta

[Edited on 7-17-2004 by Dan....]

 

[panicbird]

Short answers (I am sure Paul Manata will be of way more help than I am): Islam depends upon the Christian worldview. Remember, it is a post-Christian invention.

Judaism is a truncated version of the Christian worldview. Also, it cannot account for the one and many problem (how there can be universals yet also particulars).

How is that, Paul?

Lon

 

[alwaysreforming]

Perhaps you've overstated your case and there COULD be a case for universals without it being a "Christian" theistic worldview. Wouldn't one only have to hold to an idea of a god being uncreated and being the absolute beginning of all creation to allow for this? I don't know; I'm just thinking...

 

[ChristianTrader]

One and The Many

Could someone point to me some resource that shows how Christians solve this problem.

Thanks.

Hermonta

 

[ChristianTrader]

The rope is getting longer

Me: [b:609bf8ad9e]Anyone can make an assertion, I was kind of looking for more than that. How do these two examples justify that my statement is the dumbest things I have yet said.[/b:609bf8ad9e]

Him: [i:609bf8ad9e]Wow, if you can't understand it, I'm not sure that I can put it in simple enough terms for you to get it. But I'll try.

You claimed that there is a need for a "Christian theistic worldview if you want to allow for universals." I take this to say that you cannot have "universals" if you are not a Christian.

However, I think that Jews and Muslims have just as much right to claim a "universal" as any Christian does; after all, they all worship the same god, which I assume is where these universals come from.

But I think that even you can understand that a Jew or a Muslim does not have a "Christian theistic worldview".

So already, your claim is pretty stupid, as these exceptions not only should be totally obvious, but also represent more people than are represented by having a "Christian theistic worldview".

And even the idea of theism being required to allow for any sort of universal seems incredibly weak; but I can't expect you to understand that someone can believe in something without having a god to tell him.[/i:609bf8ad9e]

Prelim response: Point out how he is backing a previous assertion with another assertion, that Christians, Muslim, and Jews are worshipping the same God. So I would ask why he believes that they all worship the same God and not just that some make that claim while the claim is in fact false.

Next, I never said that someone had to acknowledge God or read about him in the Bible in order to use universals etc. My claim is that universals etc. do not make sense in other worldviews.

Critiques would be appreciated.

Hermonta

 

[JohnV]

Hermonta:

I would agree with your tact so far. I am also in line with Paul's critique of the answers you were given. Paul deftly lays bare the motives that also adhere to the arguments given so far. I notice that you originally claimed that a Christian worldview is necessary to account for universals. And he has not attacked that as yet. He has only muddied the pond so far, and that is what Paul has indicated as well. So you are doing well in keeping clear of the traps laid for you.

If I may, using Paul's numbering system, I'd like to add my two cents worth.

[i:d4881cd658]1 Him: Wow, if you can't understand it, I'm not sure that I can put it in simple enough terms for you to get it. But I'll try. [/i:d4881cd658]
He's assuming that his world view is the norm, and that you are way out of wack. You can call him on that; put the onus on him since he asked for it. Teh burden of proof is now on him.

[i:d4881cd658]2 You claimed that there is a need for a "Christian theistic worldview if you want to allow for universals." I take this to say that you cannot have "universals" if you are not a Christian. [/i:d4881cd658]
No you did not say that. This is a trap to make you say something you did not say. In fact it is an attempt to make you personally accountable for universals, and you need to avoid that. After all, you don't want everyone and his brother calling you all times of the night to find out universals, do you?

[i:d4881cd658]3 However, I think that Jews and Muslims have just as much right to claim a "universal" as any Christian does; after all, they all worship the same god, which I assume is where these universals come from. [/i:d4881cd658]

Only if they have the integrity to put their system of faith on the line at each question of integrity, like the Christian does. In fact, even an atheist may do the same. But they have to take away all prejudice against the Bible as God's Word.

[i:d4881cd658]4 But I think that even you can understand that a Jew or a Muslim does not have a "Christian theistic worldview". [/i:d4881cd658]

Neither do many Christians. It does not depend on the person but on the consistency of the worldview.

[i:d4881cd658]5 So already, your claim is pretty stupid, as these exceptions not only should be totally obvious, but also represent more people than are represented by having a "Christian theistic worldview". [/i:d4881cd658]

The onus is on him now to show the obvious nature of his assertion. Setting you against the world has not changed a thing about your original statement. What is obvious? I missed it. It's a rather common fallacy to appeal to the masses, or to an authority, as the line for truth, when it has not been established that there is any relevance as yet.

[i:d4881cd658]6 And even the idea of theism being required to allow for any sort of universal seems incredibly weak; but I can't expect you to understand that someone can believe in something without having a god to tell him. [/i:d4881cd658]

This is an ad hom, and is itself weak. But again, he has put his foot in it, and you can call him on it. What he has rashly asserted about you he has now boastfully asserted about himself: he in fact thinks of himself as better than you because of his worldview. You never claimed that; you made no comparison between you and others based on your intellect or ability or belief system. Whatever you do avoid doing so. But he is not even ashamed of putting himself above you based on his own attributes.

[i:d4881cd658]Prelim response: Point out how he is backing a previous assertion with another assertion, that Christians, Muslim, and Jews are worshipping the same God. So I would ask why he believes that they all worship the same God and not just that some make that claim while the claim is in fact false.

Next, I never said that someone had to acknowledge God or read about him in the Bible in order to use universals etc. My claim is that universals etc. do not make sense in other worldviews. [/i:d4881cd658]

Very good, so far. Remember that this is a person you are talking to. Even if he doesn't remember that, you have to. Let the Spirit do the work, not you. He may or may not respond; he may or may not respond at this time; and he may or may not be moved by what you say to him. Some unbelievers withstand even the most thorough responses, and some come to faith to our surprise, given the responses they've been given. Sometimes what you do outshines what you say. You have to exhibit Christ in both ways. After all, it's His message, not yours.

[Edited on 7-10-2004 by JohnV]

 

[ChristianTrader]

[quote:0af092aad9="Paul manata"]i am so bumed that my last response to that guy is lost? CT, did you get a chance to copy it, or anything?

Paul[/quote:0af092aad9]

I am bummed as well. I missed it. (I read it early that morning but did not think I had to hurry to print it or anything) I do have a copy of my post. I will repost it. If you would reply again, I would truly appreciate it.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Bold: Me .
Italics: Him in Response
Regular: My preliminary response.
[b:f8bf1e155d]
We have adopted logic? O.K. What did we use to adopt it? With what did we use to come up with the laws of logic? Our thought processes. What are our thought processes? Well, you said that they are chaotic. So, our chaotic thought processes came up with ordered laws of logic?

It is a set of rules we adopted? So, before we ";;adopted them";; then could the law of non-contradiction have been false? If not then we didn't ";;adopt";; them but rather discovered them.[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]
No. I purposely used the term ";;adopted";; for a reason. We didn't make logic up. We found it and adopted it. We didn't ";;discover";; it, because we had to fine-tune it over time to more perfectly mirror reality according to what appears to be constant. [/i:f8bf1e155d]

The problem here is that you cannot fine tune a trancendental. It is beyond human experience. You can only fine tune things that you can get ahold of by some fashion. Now we can fine tune our understanding of the laws of logic. Which just means that we discovered the laws of logic.


[b:f8bf1e155d]Furthermore, if we adopted them then that makes them contingent and not necessary. If they are not necessary then the law of non-contradiction does not have to hold. Or, why not adopt other systems of logic, or ways to ";;order";; our thinking? What basis could you tell someone that they are illogical? All you would do is force your adopted ";;laws";; upon his. But this is to beg the question. For, what is in question is whether your laws of logic are universally true. But how can something that man adopted be universally true, and why think that they apply to the contingent realm of experience? [/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]There are no other viable systems of Logic. I used to think so and got slammed by Kazim on the subject. I couldn't even come up with another Universe where mathematics didn't apply (though I tried). It depends on what you're looking for. If it can be found with an ";;if-- and-- then--";; process, then Logic is your method, no matter what your culture or education.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

The laws of logic are a bit more than if/then. The issue that I was addressing was that if something was adopted then one would be able to adopt something else. If one cannot adopt something else, then one did not in fact adopt anything. They instead accepted it.

The rest of the my statement concerned how if the laws of logic were in fact adopted, then they could not be universally true.

[b:f8bf1e155d]All we would be doing is imposing our adopted ";;rules";; upon a lawless universe. Thus we have subjectivism. This all seems stange. Certainly your story does not make the laws of logic invarient and universal. If they are not that then how can you use them to critique Christianity? For all we know what we call a contradiction now was not then. Only if you impose our culture's thoughts upon anothers could you say that something 3 thousands years ago was contradictory. But this is cultural predjudice. Why are atheists so predjudicial? )
[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]The universe is lawless? Logic is cultural? You haven't proven that.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

If the laws of logic were adopted then you would have to accept that they were not universal and others could adopt another set of laws of logic. That would make logic dependent on which group one was addresses. This is false and Logic is therefore not cultural.

If the rules of logic were adopted then one would be imposing their adopted laws upon an inherently lawless universe. These are serious problems if you want to say that the laws of logic are actually adopted

[b:f8bf1e155d]The laws of logic are consistent but not if they are adopted! The laws of logic gain their invariance and universality from reflecting the nature of God. God cannot change and is universal.[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]No. They gain their invariance and universality from reflecting the consistency of the universe.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

That is just a truism. The laws are invariant because they reflect invariance. That is a completely uninteresting statement. The issue is what has to be true in order for us to make sense of the laws of logic and uniformity of nature.

[b:f8bf1e155d]So lets see what reasoning you give:[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]it also could be due to the inherent properties of matter, force, gravity, and on and on.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

[b:f8bf1e155d]So, your reason is that reality is consistent because that is the way matter behaves? So, you're really saying that reality is consistent because, ";;that's just the way it is.";; Well, that is not a *reason.* That is arbitrary. Doubt me? Well see how you like this argument: God exists and that's just the way it is. That is not rational. So, still waiting for your *reason.*
[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]That's my whole point. I don't KNOW the reason. Neither do you. Same with the existence of God. You are the single entity on this earth that changed me from being a hard Atheist to an agnostic because I couldn't argue this point with you unless I admitted that I don't KNOW if there's a God. No, I don't know if there's a God, but there is much less evidence in favor of God's existence (none) than evidence that reality is consistent.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

This is where I think I really need a hint as to what response to give.

[b:f8bf1e155d]
We don't know why things are the way they are but we know that they cannot be the way Christianity says that they are? Sounds confused. Let's hold on to this and see if it comes back up like a bad burrito.
[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]We don't know why things are the way they are, but we know that Christianity is an explanation that falls into the category of ";;Faiths";;- religions. Which is right? I'm still waiting for evidence of which has the best chance of being correct. In the meantime, things like Logic and the Scientific Method are coming up with evidence that points us in directions all the time. Religions don't even do that simple thing.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

The question again is what has to be correct before knowledge can even be obtained. Logic and the Scientific Method work because what has to be true?

Would be great to have a good comeback to his religious putdown

[b:f8bf1e155d]So, what does not being accepted ";;by most theists";; have to do with the truth of the argument? I'll tell you: Nothing! Christianity has answers and no one else does. We're not better off. It's just if you want to have answers then you need to bow the knee to Jehovah God.[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]I'm trying hard to come up with the difference between that argument and the one made by Muslims, or Jews, or any of the others. All of these people 'have the answers'. All of them tell me that my worldview would be complete if I believed they way they do- based on what?[/i:f8bf1e155d]

Oh yes others do talk a bunch of smack. However I am not here to refute their smack. I am on an atheist board, so I am here to refute atheist smack. If you wish to convert to Judaism or Islam then I will refute those things. But since you are neither, your argument is ";;someone else might have an answer for you but I do not";;. That does not come across to cool.

[b:f8bf1e155d]Also, you said that just because someone has answers it doesn't make them better off. Now, is this the way things are? If not, then what of all the time you spent talking. If this answer is the way things are, i.e., the way things are is that someone who has an answer is not better off than those who don't, then above didn't you say that you didn't know the way things are? The rational/irratinal tension of unbelief is comming for you. I knew that quote would come in handy. Let's see if we can use it some more.[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]
That went a bit above my head, but I will say that I was talking about those who CLAIM to have answers that they can't back up. If someone was unsure about why it was raining on a particular day and I knew that it was because it was March 10th, 1998, am I really better off?[/i:f8bf1e155d]

A bit of help here would be appreciated.

[b:f8bf1e155d]No, it's every issue. Oh, and, is that the way things are? That the TA for morality has the most force?[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]
Yes, because morality is difficult. I happen to know that you, CT, have finally discerned the absolute truth about morality from the Bible and that God has blessed you with total understanding. But. Most other Christians have not been so blessed, nor are they correct in their interpretations of the Bible. I don't doubt that it is because they have been sloppy in their research, or were perhaps less blessed by the Father, but even within the kingdom on earth, morality is difficult.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

The ";;how do you know that you are interpreting right vs. other folks argument";;. This I really need help concerning.

[b:f8bf1e155d]Sorry but that is not a transcendental. A transcendental is something that must be presupposed in order to make sense of any aspect of human experience. Put another way, if it was false the ability to know things would be destroyed. And, the thing presupposed is always an apriori (outside of sense experience). My wife is pregnant is an a posteriori (derived from the facts) claim. So, it appears that you don't know ";;the way things are";; with respect to transcendental arguments.[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]I think I do. ";;soon";; is a transcendental just as ";;My wife";; is. Like I said, ";;my wife";; could depend on one's presupposition of what ";;wife";; means. Reread the post.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

What exactly is a transcendental? Did I steer him wrong?

[b:f8bf1e155d]Wait. Did you say that the chaos of our thought patterns rely on certain universals in order to reflect any kind of actual reality?[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]Yes.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

So universals do exist?

[b:f8bf1e155d]First, this is a very confusing sentence. Secondly, our thoughts rely on these universals in order to reflect on reality? How do you know that? Didn't you say that you ";;don't know why things are the way they are?";;[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]Yes, but I also said that we know something about the way things are. Just not why. See the difference? [/i:f8bf1e155d]

So if you do not know why, then how exactly do you come to terms with rejecting the Christian View? Since you do not know what the answer looks like, you can only prejudicially reject things. Right?

[b:f8bf1e155d]Now, how does what is in our minds get us to actual reality? This was a big jump and I cannot let you do this. So, explain how you know how reality is outside your mind, or outside your perception of it.
[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]Once again, I can only decide on matters of reality by what's consistent.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

???

[b:f8bf1e155d]So these are not absolute transcendentals. Hmmmm, are you absolutely sure? Also, how can relying on non-absolute transcendentals tell us how things ";;actually are?";; If you could tell us how, I bet someone would be willing to publish it.
[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]I think the problem here is that your mind cannot fathom not knowing. I assure you that at that time in the future when Logic no longer applies, it will be abandoned in favor of a more astute measure of reality wrt the things logic now answers. It will be unceremoniously dumped without a look back. That's the difference between science and religion- religion simply reinterprets the rules in order to fit the commonality of the universe but call it the same thing- Christianity- while science reinterprets the rules in order to fit the commonality of the universe and acknowledges the fact that ideas have changed. It has happened so often in science that we must now admit that we don't ";;know";; anything. But religion seems to constantly ";;know";; and change everything it knows over time, and still say that it is the same thing.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

If you truly did not know anything, then you could not reject anything. Also do you have any basis to believe that Laws of logic will change in the future, besides your wish to be rid of universal?

I need help on fleshing out the rest.

[i:f8bf1e155d]None of us KNOW, but some of us are willing to admit that we have changed our minds according to the facts. Religions change their minds according to the facts with the same velocity, but don't admit there was a real, foundational, change.
[/i:f8bf1e155d]

These are interesting questions and where I start to fail in my understanding.

[b:f8bf1e155d]What do you mean a basis in reality? What is reality? If it is the structured, physical universe around us then how do universal, immaterial, absolute laws arise out of particular, material, contingent matter?
[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]I don't know, I'm talking about what you believe. [/i:f8bf1e155d]

Um if you cannot define such terms and phrases then how in the world could you understand my responses.

[b:f8bf1e155d]Lastly, you have committed what is known as the naturalistic fallacy. That is you are deriving an ought from an is. Just because reality *is* a certain way does not mean that I *ought* to not torture children.
[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]No. Once again, I was talking about what you believe. Guess I was right.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

???

[b:f8bf1e155d]The Christian God is moral by nature. His existence, holiness, and personality are the preconditions for morality. Unless you accept the Christian worldview you would have no basis for saying Child molestation is wrong. Indeed, you cannot say that ";;is the way things are";; because, remember, you don't know that.[/b:f8bf1e155d]

[i:f8bf1e155d]I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand the difference between knowing the way things are and understanding why. I know the way things are, I just don't understand why. If I knew the ";;why";; of things, I agree with you, that existence would be a piece of cake.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

It is a piece of cake. German Chocolate cake, Yumm

[i:f8bf1e155d]
";;The reason we make gay marriage illegal is because it is an abomination of God.";;

The reason---- is-----[/i:f8bf1e155d]

That is what he has revealed for us to do.

[i:f8bf1e155d]Sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it? But, unlike you, I have no problem not understanding why things are the way they are, as long as I know how things are as far as I'm capable to know.[/i:f8bf1e155d]

You have no problem living in ignorance if the truth includes what the Bible says.

[i:f8bf1e155d]You, and all other Transcendental Argument people, can't either understand the difference between WHY and HOW, or are so small of mind that you can't understand that every religion offers the same proofs of their alignment with reality as every other religion. ";;I've studied this book";; ";;Our faith makes more sense.";; ";;I've seen God influence my life.";; ";;I pray, and am comforted.";;[/i:f8bf1e155d]

Have I done so? I have not resorted to feelings? I have gone to trancendental argumentation. The problem is that you have no naturalistic solution and have no hope of such because the answer is beyond sense experience.

[i:f8bf1e155d]The BIG problem is that none of what you offer has any more staying power than science. You have to change your views right along with the rest of the planet- all religions along with the not so much. The only difference between science and religions is that science is ready, at a heartbeat, to drop all they think they know in favor of a better view of reality. They really want to know. Religions try to fit new developments, new understandings of what's what, into their ancient dogma, and say ";;See? We were right all along! It was the heretics that led us astray.";;
[/i:f8bf1e155d]

Science is based on the things that this argument talks about. If your worldview was correct science would not work. No scientific experiment can change what is necessary to make sense out of the experiment experiment itself. We are talking preconditions.

[i:f8bf1e155d]CT, I really enjoy these conversations, but as I go along, I'm more and more convinced that your presuppositional apologetics are based on the fact that, while your religion has evolved along with the rest of us, you cannot admit that the word of God has changed, and that it was the morons interpreting the Bible at the time that didn't do it right. ";;NOW, we finally understand things and everything that I say will not change over time.";;

That's the difference between religion and science- science never says this.

k
[/i:f8bf1e155d]

I am kinda stuck here.

Again any help is really needed.

 

[ChristianTrader]

He does seem to be getting desperate

[i:f58e3eae7e]
CT,

Now we're going around in circles.

You're saying the same things you said before, and I would say the same things I said before in response.

Let me just say that the consistency of things could be due to just about anything, even a God, but it couldn't be the Christian God.

If one pre-supposes that it must be the Christian God, then that person comes by that pre-supposition by faith and not by observation.

Observation renders the Christian God so difficult to believe in, it takes something as baseless as faith in order to do so. Your faith is immense, I'll give you that.

But Logic, and Science in general, depend on observation alone. If this, and this, then that- whether we understand why or not, 'that' is certainly the result of this, and this. If not, or if not always, then further experimentation is required to more accurately state the theory.

If everything changes tomorrow, we'll have to start over, but it would be silly to expect that everything will.

[/i:f58e3eae7e]

It seems that he has dropped the Agnostic label and is now willing to be openly hostile to the God of the Bible.

It also seems that he is attempting to rule God out by fiat (If God is not so tall and so big but not bigger then he can exist)

Paul,

I truly appreciate your help in answering the critic and by default helping me to more fully appreciate this approach.

Hermonta

 

[luvroftheWord]

At the very least, he has demonstrated that agnosticism cannot be consistently lived out.

I also found this comment funny:

[quote:77e4d04f30]But Logic, and Science in general, depend on observation alone. If this, and this, then that- whether we understand why or not, 'that' is certainly the result of this, and this. If not, or if not always, then further experimentation is required to more accurately state the theory.[/quote:77e4d04f30]

Maybe he has, but I have never observed a law of logic, or any law in general. I didn't know you could observe them.

And he denies that science depends on faith, but he still hasn't proven the uniformity of nature, which makes science possible. Indeed, he has no explanation for why nature is uniform, so he believes it in faith, which means that his confidence in science is a step of faith as well.