Atheist presuppositions

[Keith C]

How do you know if your observations are correct or not...without having blind faith in your own empirical experiences? Suppose your senses are lying to you? How would you test them?

One test which I have mentioned several times, is comparison with predictions about the real world. This requires 2 sets of observations, 1 for the data and a second to see whether the predictions are correct. Unless both sets of observations are distorted consistently, this will reveal inconsistencies.
The other check in science is to have other people make their own observations. This eliminates personal bias, but does not eliminate other possibilities, like satan falsifying observations to make science and evolution seem true and causing people to doubt the bible.

I do not require 100% certainty, such as a mathematical proof can provide. In the real world there is always some remote possibility which can not be eliminated eg the sun not rising tomorrow if collision with an asteroid stops the earth's rotation.

[JLVaughn]

Shotgun,

How do you know if your observations are correct or not...without having blind faith in your own empirical experiences? Suppose your senses are lying to you? How would you test them?

The entire Bible calls on us to put faith in our observations and our empirical experiences and judgments. If we can't trust them, then we have no basis to evaluate miracles.

You can't trust your senses. The ax head in 2 Kings 6 might have been floating all the time. You can't trust your senses. Nobody can be sure Jesus died.

You can't trust your empirical experiences. Maybe ax heads do float. Maybe people do come back to life on their own.

In attacking Keith's basis of knowledge, you've destroyed your own. You can't trust your eyes, therefore, you can't know what is on the pages of Scripture.

The Atheist's problem is not trusting his observations and empirical experience are correct? It is the improper discounting of eye-witness testimony that doesn't match his own observations and experience. He has made himself a witness to something he has not seen.

All he can say is, my observations, experience, and such, would lead me to expect ... But a miracle is not something to be expected. He can't test the miracle. He can only test the credibility of the witness who claim to have observed the miracle.

Did the ax head float? I didn't see it. My own observations and experience tell me it normally wouldn't. But I was not there that one time. Witnesses claim it did. Do the witnesses have credibility?

Did Jesus rise from the dead? I didn't see it. My own observations and experience tell me it normally wouldn't. But I was not there that one time. Witnesses claim it did. Do the witnesses have credibility?

In this last case, these witnesses went to their deaths for their testimony. They claimed to have seen it. They died because they claimed to have seen it and refused to recant that testimony.

You might get someone to go to their death refusing to recant something they believe. But going to their death for refusing to recant what they saw, heard, and felt, what they were eyewitnesses to is different. These men trusted their observations to the point of death.

[Objectivitees]

Unless both sets of observations are distorted consistently, this will reveal inconsistencies.

And how do you know your senses aren't distorting them consistently?

JLV...

In attacking Keith's basis of knowledge, you've destroyed your own.

Not quite, the Theist has a reason to believe his senses are reliable, the Atheist doesn't. Therefore one can attack the Atheist "basis" without destroying one's own. (If one is Theist)

[JLVaughn]

Sorry O,

But we have thousands of years of history of Theists who deny the general reliability of observations, including most of the evangelical church of the past 48 years.

[Objectivitees]

Sorry O,

But we have thousands of years of history of Theists who deny the general reliability of observations, including most of the evangelical church of the past 48 years.

Sorry JLV, but that's an argument from authority, by device of fallacious appeal to popularity, or "ad populum."

Did you have an actual argument of reason and logic to support your claim?

[JLVaughn]

No O,

That's not an appeal to authority. It is an empirical observation that falsifies your general claim.

If you would like to replace your false general claim with a more narrow claim that might be true, I'm willing to entertain.

[jms]

So I've been trying to make sense of how the Christian's presuppositions authenticate themselves, and I will paraphrase here my understanding of it. Unfortunately, the argument I am about to present is deeply flawed, so I'm hoping that one of you who understand presuppositional apologetics better than I can correct this argument.

Suppose an atheist says "my sensory input accurately reflects reality." This statement may or may not be true, but even if it is true, the atheist would have no way of ever knowing it. So now suppose a Christian says "The Bible is God's inerrant word." There can be some certainty of this statement, because if it is true, then God for sure knows that it is true, in a more complete and unquestionable way than anyone could ever know the truth of the atheist's statement. In this way, the Christian's statement is authenticatable.

Unfortunately, this doesn't really solve the problem, because while God may be sure that he wrote the Bible, how could the Christian? So I still don't see how the statement I gave, or any statement that isn't a tautology, can authenticate itself...

[Objectivitees]

No O,

That's not an appeal to authority. It is an empirical observation that falsifies your general claim.

If you would like to replace your false general claim with a more narrow claim that might be true, I'm willing to entertain.

Empirical observation of a bunch of people who believe a certain thing. Now, pay attention... your "observation" of the number of people who believed it, and their stature in the church are empirical observations, you appealing to their belief refuting mine by device of their stature is an appeal to authority, and by appeal to their number a fallacious appeal to popularity, or ad populum.

Did you have a rational argument for why your claim is not fallacious, or just the statement its not fallacious?

[shotgun]

Keith,

I applaud your sincerity in attempts to verify scientific claims...such attitudes are to be commended. However every appeal you make (be it an appeal to other people's claims, or to repeated and consistent observations) is a final appeal to your mind's ability to make sense out of your subjective experiences. I challenge you to reflect on your empirical verification "system" and find some way to verify the legitimacy of your own sense experiences (without alluding to the legitimacy of your sense experiences). Additionally...if you claim that Jesus Christ wasn't God in the flesh, and then admit that you cannot know such a claim to be true with any validity...then fine. Admit that at the outset of any discussion with future Christians, and you'll not find much to argue about.

J.L. Vaughn...you should be more careful:

But we have thousands of years of history of Theists who deny the general reliability of observations, including most of the evangelical church of the past 48 years. - quote from Mr. Vaughn, who doesn't realize that if he believes as Theists of yore supposedly believe, then he couldn't know the statement to be true in the first place.

Additionally...you forget that the Atheist and I have very different epistemologies. If Mr. Keith would like to explicitly appeal to the all-powerful, transcendent, triune God of Christianity in order to verify his sense experiences...then let's throw a party!! God tells us in the Bible that our sense experiences have the ability to bring us into contact with truth. If our hearts are regenerated, and we receive the gift of faith, then we accept God on His own authority, and know for a fact that our sense data can be true under proper conditions.

Also, I found an interesting quote from John Frame and thought of you:

"Presuppositionalism [say critics] has become the majority report today among Reformed theologians, although it cannot even be called a minority report of church history......If Van Til's view is relatively new, it is not on that account false; Protestants are not traditionalists. Van Til himself finds relatively little of value in his apologetic predecessors (See a Christian Theory of Knowledge.) It seems to me that Christian apologetics before this century have been ambiguous on this question." - Apologetics to the Glory of God, Appendix A.

JMS...God does not appeal to the human mind in order to authenticate Himself. God does not say: "Here are my qualifications, now YOU be the judge!" God says: "I am God, and what I say is truth!" Whether you believe in this sort of God or not...it must be admitted that the only way this God's word can be authenticated is by His own authority. We do not verify God in the court of human reason...we simply accept His own authority. More on this to come...

And to Mr. O'Tees...I've loved reading your posts in this thread! Amen!

[Keith C]

["quote=Keith"]Unless both sets of observations are distorted consistently, this will reveal inconsistencies.

And how do you know your senses aren't distorting them consistently?[/quote]
I would have no way to detect this, but so what?
It would be like watching the same movie scene on different-sized TV screens. Each view would look completely realistic.

I think this gets back to essentially the same question as:- why would god create fossils to trick Christians into believing in evolution instead of Genesis?
Why distort reality consistently in order to mislead scientists?

Not quite, the Theist has a reason to believe his senses are reliable, the Atheist doesn't. Therefore one can attack the Atheist "basis" without destroying one's own. (If one is Theist)

Your Theist argument seems completely circular. The only reason the theist has is that the bible tells him so. and how can he be sure that he is reading and interpreting correctly?

[Objectivitees]

I would have no way to detect this, but so what?

Well, the "so what" would be that if you have no way to detect this, you can't claim actual knowledge, as ultimately, your argumentation becomes nihilistic, and devoid of literal meaning. In short, you become self-refuting. Please read shotguns suggestion of Rusell manions paper, "The other side: metaphysics and meaning", it's an eye opener!

Your Theist argument seems completely circular.

This Keith, is really a good critique on your part! Congratulations!
However, my argument is not circular in the question begging fallacious sense. I don't mean to condescend but I have to ask you a question...are you aware that not all "circular" reasoning is of the fallacious variety?

Fallacious circular reasoning happens when the "conclusion" of an argument (syllogism, modus tollens) is essentially a re-statement of one or more of the premises.
An argument that is made, where premise and conclusion affirm each other, (but do not prove or disprove or 're-state') is a reasoning wherein one idea gives support to the other and vice versa, is 'circular', but not fallacious.

What we are saying here, is that Christianity gives us reason to expect logic exists, is valid means for testing, and we 'should' use it, (these ideas are actually expressed by scripture, as well as informal restatements of the laws of logic themselves)and logic which is assumed as a precondition of intelligibility turns right around and allows us to examine the internal consistency of the idea of Christianity, giving us "reason" to believe our "reasons", when we find the logical consistency of the worldview.

The Atheist/Naturalistic/Evolutionary worldviews are without this self affirming reason. The beliefs (Atheism and logic) stand alone (apart from each other) without affirmation of each other.

You see, logic allows you to rationally express an internally consistent worldview called "Atheism" or "Evolution", but the worldview itself, does not affirm the validity or existence of Logic.

Logic allows us to rationally express an internally consistent worldview called "Christianity", and worldview itself gives us an affirmation that Logic is valid and exists.

[shotgun]

Also...buried in all those pesky words of mine was this statement to Mr. Vaughn:

God tells us in the Bible that our sense experiences have the ability to bring us into contact with truth. If our hearts are regenerated, and we receive the gift of faith, then we accept God on His own authority, and know for a fact that our sense data can be true under proper conditions.

We...along with Augustine..."Believe in order to know..."

**EDIT**

By the way...I finally found a copy of Manion's paper online. Someone re-blogged it! He also links to the audio reading of it...which is quite good:

http://epistolaeobscurorumvirorum.blogs ... aning.html