dios: I referred you here earlier today – and I hope you remember this conversation, and really think about it. once you do, I hope you read the followup in light of that, and see if I’ve been saying anything too different.

* dios_mio (test@88.243.102.125) has joined #apologetics
[dios_mio] dood
[dios_mio] is Christianity true or is atheism true?
[@RazorsKiss] Christianity is true, dios.
[dios_mio] how do you know?
[dios_mio] i was thinking about evolution, if it is true then we are just accidents
[dios_mio] then our existence is pointless
[@RazorsKiss] Because God reveals Himself through Scripture, in those who are believers, and in nature to both show this to be true, and to verify it as true.
[dios_mio] I honestly think that christians are the best people
[@RazorsKiss] It is true that evolution results in that.
[@RazorsKiss] I don’t think we’re the best people.
[dios_mio] the christian worldview has hope, contrasted with the bleak worldview of evolution and atheism
[@RazorsKiss] I think we’ve been given incredible gifts that we don’t deserve.
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: that’s why we’re told to “always be ready” to give an answer for the hope that is within us.
[dios_mio] i would rather be around christians than cynical atheists, or violent and dumb muslims
[dios_mio] yes
[dios_mio] but i dont think you have an adequate answer
[@RazorsKiss] So would I – because Christians share something in common – God in them.
[@RazorsKiss] Well, dios, the answer isn’t mine. That’s the problem.
[@RazorsKiss] We give an answer – but the answer is what Scripture commands us to give.
[dios_mio] because unfortunately evolution is true… that doesn’t mean that we must forsake our belief in our worth as human beings… if we surrender to the world of science we will lose the meaning of our world
[@RazorsKiss] If you assume that a priori, I can’t convince you otherwise.
[@RazorsKiss] Especially if you understand that it results in meaningless.
[@RazorsKiss] *meaninglessness
[dios_mio] it is not about assuming it, I just cant reject it when there is so much evidence
[dios_mio] yes its results are devastating
[@RazorsKiss] All evidence is filtered through assumptions.
[@RazorsKiss] But we’ve gone over that before 😀
[dios_mio] true, it is pointless to talk about whether evolution is true
[dios_mio] but lets talk about its implications
[@RazorsKiss] The main problem: do you accept scientists as having the correct assumptions?
[dios_mio] it offers a world devoid of value
[@RazorsKiss] Or do you accept God’s self-revelation to mankind?
[dios_mio] I believe that the debate about evolution is one scientists cannot lose in their own field
[@RazorsKiss] Remember – science relies on the assumption that only material things are “real”, and that uniformity is required to see the same result.
[@RazorsKiss] However, that same scientific assumption also says that the process that results in the evolution of humans is a _random_ process.
[@RazorsKiss] You can’t have it both ways.
[dios_mio] looking at the world from science’s perspective alone results in many contradictions
[@RazorsKiss] Is it uniform, or is it random?
[@RazorsKiss] but, you can’t assume it to be uniform without a real, underlying meaning for the laws that give it regularity. You can’t assume the random, evolving processes, unless you reject the uniformity of nature.
[@RazorsKiss] They’re contradictory principles – but yet scientists hold to both.
[dios_mio] we are facing a paradox, we cannot reject the findings of science and at the same time the results of science threatens to undermine our human world…
[@RazorsKiss] Why? Because they come to the data with certain assumptions.
[@RazorsKiss] the paradox is that people accept a self-contradictory system.
[dios_mio] the results of science threaten to undermine even the starting assumptions of science itself
[@RazorsKiss] Yes, they do.
[@RazorsKiss] But it’s not science doing it.
[@RazorsKiss] It’s the assumptions that science is approached with – by scientists.
[@RazorsKiss] you don’t approach facts in a vacuum.
[@RazorsKiss] There aren’t any “brute” facts.
[@RazorsKiss] They are facts – but they are always interpreted in the light of your philosophy, or worldview – your system of thinking.
[@RazorsKiss] and when your worldview is self-defeating, what can you expect of the results of it?
[dios_mio] yes, that is a common vantillian theme, and it is correct
[@RazorsKiss] My worldview can stand on it’s own principles, and not defeat itself.
[@RazorsKiss] The materialistic evolutionist _cannot_ account for his own principles within his own worldview.
[dios_mio] it is like when we said earlier that the results of science threaten to undermine the starting assumptions of science..
[@RazorsKiss] To make them meaningful, he has to pull aspects from elsewhere – which shows it’s bankruptcy
[BK_DL] did someone mention Van Til
[@RazorsKiss] Everything I know, is known because _of_ the foundation of my system, not in spite of it.
[BK_DL] ?
[BK_DL] 🙂
* BK_DL is now known as BK_
[dios_mio] if evolution is true it doesn’t matter what one believes anyway… because it doesn’t matter whether one believes in evolution or christianity
[@RazorsKiss] and, further, it doesn’t matter what evolution says – because it may or may not be true.
[@RazorsKiss] it undercuts it’s own foundation for whether or not anything is true.
[dios_mio] truth itself becomes meaningless.. like Bonz/Baawa refuses to use the word “truth”
[@RazorsKiss] Correct.
[@RazorsKiss] Now, let me ask you – do we not have minds that think, and think logically? (or can/should)
[dios_mio] yes certainly
[@RazorsKiss] If this is so – a materialistic account of origins has NO explanation – and in fact, denies – the very concept used to formulate it
[dios_mio] then there is the argument of plantinga against evolutionary naturalism, it makes an interesting point too
[@RazorsKiss] *explanation of
[@RazorsKiss] What possible reason is there to hold to the truth of a system that results in the denial of truth itself?
[@RazorsKiss] Is that even coherent? Can it make sense at all?
[dios_mio] the thing is the evolutionary worldview leaves us in a world devoid of any value or meaning,,, undermining the philosophical foundations of biology and all science,,,
[@RazorsKiss] it says, basically, that we’re doing nothing, for nothing, and know nothing
[dios_mio] we are meant to believe in some sort of God
[@RazorsKiss] What possible reason is there to hold to such a thing?
[@RazorsKiss] There is nothing to hold TO!
[@RazorsKiss] Yes, we are.
[@RazorsKiss] Scripture declares that very succinctly, in many places.
[@RazorsKiss] What scientists look at, are all God’s facts, and must be interpreted according to God’s principles, by which He governs and sustains the universe.
[dios_mio] but I think we must just accept the paradoxical situation that science ultimately undermines itself and shatters our worldview… because denying science isn’t easy
[@RazorsKiss] When you fail to do that, all you end up with is nihilism.
[dios_mio] I think that our existence is built upon such a foundation that it can only hold together if we look at it from a religious/theistic point of view….
[@RazorsKiss] I think that the problem isn’t denying science.
[@RazorsKiss] I don’t deny science.
[dios_mio] but that doesn’t mean that there is a God.. I dont think there is a God, but just that truth is meant to be contradictory and irrational
[@RazorsKiss] I deny the assumptions that the typical scientist uses to interpret the data he sees.
[@RazorsKiss] If truth is irrational, and has no grounds, it is not truth.
[dios_mio] well you deny the evolution part
[dios_mio] yeah, but that is the paradoxical nature of our existence
[@RazorsKiss] Evolution has no real data to support it. It is completely philosophical in nature.
[dios_mio] because see, evolution is indeed true, and scriptural religions are made up
[dios_mio] I dont think you have the biological credentials to dispute evolution
[@RazorsKiss] It doesn’t take a biology phd to realize that there are no transitional forms, there is no way to explain evolutionary biology with what we see, and that there is no evidence, whatsoever, of a complex organism evolving in an inter-species manner
[dios_mio] thats a simplistic view of biology
[@RazorsKiss] Not to mention the fact that even a cursory examination of the chemical composition, it’s ultimate complexity, the generally irreducible aspects of so, so many of the systems in only the human body, let alone those of a myriad of animals
[@RazorsKiss] cannot possibly lead an observer to surmise that the debate is evidencial, in any way.
[@RazorsKiss] It cannot be.
[@RazorsKiss] It was an off-the cuff response to an off-the-cuff comment – I wasn’t writing a paper 😀
[@RazorsKiss] So yeah, it’s gonna be short and to the point
[@RazorsKiss] heh
[@RazorsKiss] brb
[dios_mio] “It is a pointless battle, which science cannot lose on its own ground, and where any gains for the attackers will only be discreditable reflections of political power. Meanwhile, both sides seem to overlook the fact that the exercise is irrelevant. The march of science in fact encounters unbreachable limits, already clearly perceived and defined by Kant.”
[dios_mio] http://www.friesian.com/god.htm
[@RazorsKiss] the fact is, I would again argue, that those limits are the limits of any system which is self-defeating.
[dios_mio] actually check this page, it is written especially about evolution versus creationism: http://www.friesian.com/design.htm
[@RazorsKiss] It cannot explain, account, or argue any of it’s conclusions sucessfully to a meaningful, knowable foundation.
[@RazorsKiss] You can only reduce it to a supposed “paradox” in every case – which is just a way of saying “I can’t answer that” 😀
[@RazorsKiss] but really, brb 😀
[dios_mio] ok
[dios_mio] “We then must ask, “Is science ‘naturalistic’?” The answer to that is “yes,” because naturalism, properly undertood, is a method, an empirical method, which is the very essence of modern science ever since Galileo. The Intelligent Design theorists want to claim an empirical justification themselves, but the assumptions that they introduce into their method are inconsistent with the very logic of scientific method.”
[BK_] ” I dont think there is a God, but just that truth is meant to be contradictory and irrational”
[BK_] do you mean this, dios_mio?
[dios_mio] well yes, truth from the point of view science destroys our human world and takes away all its value and meaning
[BK_] so truth from the point of view of science it meant to be contradictory?
[BK_] or truth in general?
[dios_mio] this philosopher I am quoting accepts evolution, but in philosophy he is not a naturalist, he believes in meaning and value.. he is actually a Platonist
[dios_mio] but I dont understand he can believe both in evolution and meaning
[dios_mio] well I mean the greater truth about our existence… the truth is that we are just chemical accidents that were not intended to be
[BK_] so that wasn’t your point of view – it was a quote?
[dios_mio] no it is my point of view.. that philosopher has different views
[dios_mio] he believes in value and meaning
[@RazorsKiss] We can go back and forth with quotes, dios – but I don’t think it has any merit in the long run. Under naturalism, none of those words has any objective meaning, and can mean practically anything at all.
[BK_] well, do you not see a problem claiming truth is supposed to be contradictory, and then saying “the truth is that we are just chemical accidents”?
[dios_mio] but I dont understand how he can reconcile it with evolution
[@RazorsKiss] He doesn’t. he holds contradictory views – it’s ultimately self-defeating.
[BK_] perhaps I don’t understand what you mean when you say truth is “meant to be contradictory”
[@RazorsKiss] Platonists cannot hold the views they do, for that matter – not consistently.
[dios_mio] BK_, the implications of that truth causes a lot of problems for us, because it takes away all value and meaning from the world
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, that guy I am quoting is a very intelligent philosopher, trust me he would put Van Til inhis place
[@RazorsKiss] But you just said there is no meaning – truth is meaningless, so you can’t be holding to anything meaningful, by that statement.
[BK_] no, the implications of “truth is meant to be contradictory” is much more problematic than just taking away meaning and value
[BK_] it *means* your very statement has no meaning
[@RazorsKiss] It is not truth – it is mere subjective opinion, with no worth, because worth has no meaning either.
[dios_mio] BK_, well yeah probably… but what can we do?
[BK_] it *means* that what you say means the opposite of what you say
[@RazorsKiss] We can reject a self-refuting system, is what we can do.
[BK_] it *means* that when you say you don’t believe in God, you actually believe in God
[dios_mio] can we deny the evidence of evolution and years of scientific work just because it destroys our worldview and undermine the meaning of our existence and cause us paradoxes?
[BK_] if one’s worldview undermines logic and truth, then that worldview cannot logically be true
[BK_] if your worldview is true, you cannot trust the evidence of evolution and years of scientific work in the first place
[dios_mio] the thing is, you cannot reject a whole chunk of science simply with a reductio ad absurdum
[@RazorsKiss] there’s no evidence, under that system there is nothing to deny OR hold, and whether you hodl it or not has nothing to say in either direction.
[@RazorsKiss] It is complete and total anarchism, with no possible meaning to anything whatsoever – including itself.
[BK_] in other words, your worldview refutes itself
[dios_mio] here we have a clash between empirical evidence and traditional foundations for any knowledge
[@RazorsKiss] So why bother trying to hold it? It’s nothing.
[@RazorsKiss] There is no foundation for it – it undercuts it’s own foundation.
[BK_] you cannot trust that empirical evidence, dios_mio
[@RazorsKiss] Empiricism destroys itself, because it results in meaninglessness, and says that what you “know” – you do not know.
[dios_mio] the thing is, science started out from humanly foundations that none of us can object.. it is just where it led in the end that makes us realize that we have a problem
[@RazorsKiss] Science is only as good as it’s starting assumptions
[BK_] where did it lead?
[dios_mio] BK_, evolution
[BK_] how do you know that?
[dios_mio] BK_, well, because evolution is taught in all biology departments?
[BK_] because if your staring assumptions are true, it couldn’t lead anywhere
[BK_] that’s an appeal to authority
[BK_] there mere teaching of something in biology departments doesn’t mean it is true
[@RazorsKiss] (which has no authority, since it results in meaninglessness, by your own admission)
[BK_] after all, people have taught all sorts of things that we now consider incorrect, in biology departments
[dios_mio] creationist objections to evolution are worthless… like that quote from friesian.com “It is a pointless battle, which science cannot lose on its own ground”
[@RazorsKiss] an authority without meaning is no authority.
[BK_] let’s not switch gears here, dios_mio
[BK_] you have made an assertion that science leads to evolution (a belief that it is true)
[BK_] I am saying your conclusion (that truth is contradictory) means science does *not* lead to that at all
[dios_mio] BK_, evolution by natural selection is being confirmed everyday.. its never been falsified in the past 150 years
[BK_] and what is assumed during that “confirmation” process?
[BK_] that truth is *not* contradictory, of course
[dios_mio] BK_, I meant truth in a greater scale, as in putting the implications of evolution regarding our cosmic meaning
[dios_mio] putting its implications in context I mean
[BK_] then I don’t follow what you mean
[BK_] what is the nature of truth, dios_mio?
[dios_mio] nature of truth?
[BK_] yes
[BK_] how does one know when something is true?
[dios_mio] well obviously truth is correspondence to reality
[BK_] how do you identify something as “true”?
[BK_] obviously?
[dios_mio] if you don’t count the coherence theorists
[BK_] there is more than one school of thought on that …
[dios_mio] yeah
[BK_] hehe
[BK_] well …
[BK_] that begs the question
[BK_] how does one know when something corresponds to reality?
[dios_mio] you not a correspondist?
[BK_] I am a Christian
[dios_mio] I thought it was the atheist nihilists like Rorty who were accepting a coherence theory
[BK_] how does one know when something corresponds to reality?
[@RazorsKiss] he’s asking you – he hasn’t made a positive assertion yet on the subject 😀
[dios_mio] well you gotta look and see for yourself
[BK_] well, what if two people see something different?
[BK_] which they quite often do
[dios_mio] then ask a third
[BK_] and then what?
[dios_mio] well go with the majority
[BK_] why?
[BK_] why not go with the one dissenter?
[dios_mio] because visual defects, hallucinations are rare in population
[BK_] how do you know that?
[dios_mio] from experience
[BK_] and what do you rely upon to evaluate experience?
[dios_mio] ultimately my own judgement
[BK_] do you see the circle yet?
[BK_] your senses
[dios_mio] well what can we do about it?
[BK_] and yes, your own reasoning
[dios_mio] thats the limit of whole capability in this issue
[BK_] so you should accept an arbitrary worldview because you can’t think of anything better?
[@RazorsKiss] reject a self-refuting system which grants no meaning, that’s what we should do.
[BK_] you are providing justification for your premise buy assuming your premise
[BK_] by*
[BK_] your line of reasoning is not reasonable, dios_mio
[dios_mio] well the alternative is skepticism
[dios_mio] not the bible obviously
[BK_] that’s one alternative
[@RazorsKiss] that’s one – but not the only one.
[BK_] and what’s the problem with that alternative?
[BK_] absolute skepticism?
[BK_] the problem is that it refutes itself
[dios_mio] why should the bible be an alternative? it is after somethign we see with our senses too.. and its authors relied on their senses
[BK_] therefore, it cannot *logically* be true
[dios_mio] after all*
[BK_] the problem here is the worldview in question
[BK_] you are approaching the Bible from a defective worldview
[BK_] thus the Bible appears just as worthless as anything else
[@RazorsKiss] which has no grounds for any truth, whatsoever.
[dios_mio] I approach the bible from all I have, my own judgement and reason and senses
[BK_] you will never find a satisfactory *answer* as long as you approach the world from this worldview
[@RazorsKiss] Thus, anything approached from that perspective will have no truth to be found in it.
[BK_] yes, and as long as you approach it from all that *you* have, that is where you will end up
[BK_] skepticism
[dios_mio] there is no other point of view for us humans, obviously
[@RazorsKiss] The problem is your own assumptions, not the Bible.
[BK_] obviously?
[dios_mio] can we transcend our subjective realm?
[BK_] no, we cannot
[BK_] but God does
[@RazorsKiss] Thankfully, we have a God who is transcendent, and communicates truth to us.
[dios_mio] yeah, and we are not God, we are always humans, always limited in our subjective point of view
[BK_] dios_mio: remember, we are comparing *worldviews*
[@RazorsKiss] well, keep relying on that point of view, and it will always fail you.
[BK_] theories of reality and knowledge
[@RazorsKiss] That’s what humans do – fail.
[BK_] you see that, right?
[dios_mio] unless he communicates *directly* with you it is still subject to doubt.. even the direct communication could be doubted for hallucination
[BK_] what if he does communicate directly with you?
[@RazorsKiss] because it’s all about you, assumed from the outset – once again.
[BK_] would that make the difference?
[dios_mio] well he could
[BK_] what if he did?
[BK_] would that make the difference?
[dios_mio] well, it would certainly be very powerful evidence that I could not deny
[dios_mio] and I would go by it
[BK_] don’t appeal to evidence without considering your worldview first
[dios_mio] and as you see, still it is my judgment that guides me
[BK_] remember, you are still operating from a worldview that assumes the autonomy of man in reasoning
[dios_mio] yes
[dios_mio] and there is no other way
[BK_] well *that* is the problem
[BK_] how do you know there is no other way?
[dios_mio] I am always behind my own control terminal
[@RazorsKiss] because you exclude all other ways a priori.
[BK_] you are?
[dios_mio] yes
[BK_] how do you know that?
[dios_mio] because of my experience
[BK_] you *can’t* know that
[BK_] your experience is in doubt, remember?
[dios_mio] I only doubt the external world, not my own experience
[dios_mio] err, not that I am *having* an experience
[dios_mio] or that *I am*
[dios_mio] as in Descartes
[BK_] you should doubt “I am”
[BK_] you can’t even prove that
[dios_mio] well certainly I don’t experience my own self, so yeah, you are right
[@RazorsKiss] Descartes didn’t say a blessed thing with his “I think, therefore I am”
[BK_] Descartes made a huge assumption with that statement
[@RazorsKiss] He might as well have said “I stink, therefore I am” – there’s no direct correlation between the two statements.
[BK_] that logic has metaphysical applicability
[BK_] dios_mio, the problem is with your worldview
[BK_] the problem isn’t with evidence
[dios_mio] but you see, if God communicates me, or I read the Bible, I still can doubt if it is an hallucination or a Deceiving Demon playing with my mind
[BK_] if you continue to evaluate scripture from *your* worldview, yes
[dios_mio] there is no way out of human subjective perspective
[BK_] what I am telling you is that your worldview is wrong
[BK_] how do you know that?
[BK_] you can’t know anything, remember?
[BK_] skepticism
[@RazorsKiss] You doubt that you can doubt, even.
[dios_mio] well go ahead and show me how I can transcend my subjective perspective
[@RazorsKiss] If properly applied.
[@RazorsKiss] You can’t – God can.
[BK_] do you first agree that your worldview doesn’t allow you to do it?
[BK_] would you agree that any worldview that starts with man as the ultimate is doomed?
[dios_mio] Descartes proved God with a weak ontological argument… how do you prove him? oh right, you don’t.. you just say “lets simply accept him, because otherwise we cannot solve our philosophical problems”… not very convincing
[@RazorsKiss] The only way to properly understand anything is if you are changed by God, and have all of your thinking, your life, and your soul changed and renewed by God.
[BK_] Descartes didn’t prove a thing
[dios_mio] BK_, he had an ontological argument for God
[@RazorsKiss] Descartes proved he wasn’t a very deep thinker 😀
[BK_] the fact that he had an argument doesn’t mean it was a sound argument
[BK_] would you agree that any worldview that starts with man as the ultimate is doomed?
[@RazorsKiss] but not under dios’ worldview – he’s unable to prove, or to accept anything.
[dios_mio] BK_, so tell me how we start the worldview with God?
[BK_] would you agree that any worldview that starts with man as the ultimate is doomed?
* BK_ is persistent
[dios_mio] BK_, if you call skepticism “doomed” yeah
[BK_] you don’t? 🙂
[BK_] absolute skepticism is the direct result of a worldview that begins with the subjective
[dios_mio] sop where do you start your worldview?
[BK_] absolute skepticism refutes itself
[BK_] therefore, any worldview starting with the subjective *cannot be true*
[BK_] with God
[@RazorsKiss] God, and His perfect revelation – where it should start, and the only place it CAN start.
[BK_] consider the Biblical worldview *for the sake of argument*, dios_mio
[BK_] for our discussion
[BK_] we have considered yours
[BK_] now consider ours
[dios_mio] if we doubt the external world, and the bible is part of the external world, how can I start from the theology as in the Bible?
[dios_mio] ok go ahead
[@RazorsKiss] that’s the thing – a Christian worldview does not hold to that perspective.
[BK_] if the Bible is true *as we read it*, then God is absolute
[@RazorsKiss] and BK will tell you why 😀
[BK_] if the Bible is true, then God has revealed himself to us
[dios_mio] ok
[BK_] if the Bible is true, we are sinners
[BK_] if the Bible is true, that sin interferes with our ability to reason
[BK_] if the Bible is true, that sin interferes with our ability to be “objective”
[BK_] if the Bible is true, there is one and only one way to know anything at all
[BK_] ~nas prov 1:7
[@Gutenberg^] 12Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. (NASB)
[BK_] if the Bible is true, what is the first thing we would have to do?
[BK_] fear God
[BK_] ~nas col 2:8
[@Gutenberg^] 12Col. 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (NASB)
[BK_] if the Bible is true, how many “philosophies” are there?
[BK_] just two
[BK_] one that follows Christ, and one that does not
[BK_] if the Bible is true, we must *begin* with God as our ultimate authority
[BK_] because otherwise we can never know anything at all
[BK_] in essence, if we deny God and his revelation to us, we are “fools”
[BK_] that’s the Christian worldview
[dios_mio] right
[BK_] if the Christian worldview is true, there is hope
[BK_] if the non-Christian worldview if true, there is no hope
[BK_] no knowledge
[BK_] no … anything
[dios_mio] agreed
[BK_] ~nas rom 19
[@Gutenberg^] 12Romans 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. (NASB)
[BK_] if the Bible is true, God has already revealed himself to us
[BK_] ~nas rom 10:9
[@Gutenberg^] 12Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (NASB)
[BK_] if the BIble is true, dios_mio, you must confess your sins
[BK_] you must believe in what Christ did on the cross
[BK_] you must confess that Jesus is the Christ – the savior
[BK_] then and only then do you have a worldview that can make sense out of anything at all … even your unbelief
* BK_ prays that God will open your heart to this, diso_mio
[dios_mio] thanks
[@RazorsKiss] ~nas proverbs 21
[@Gutenberg^] 12Proverbs 21 Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts. (NASB)
[dios_mio] christianity is ancient wisdom, it is not hard to deny it for sure
[BK_] it is more than wisdom
[BK_] it is truth
[BK_] it has to be
[@RazorsKiss] ~nas proverbs 21
[@Gutenberg^] 12Proverbs 21 The king’s heart is [like] channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes. (NASB)
[BK_] anytime it is denied, we become “fools”
[dios_mio] even if it was made up, it was made up by men and must contain projections from human nature, and it makes it hard to deny
[BK_] what if it wasn’t made up?
[BK_] what if it has always been?
* BK_ notes that you are now reverting to your worldview
[dios_mio] dude, there is a whole science of higher criticism and documentary hypothesis and such things…
[BK_] the Biblical worldview is that God inspired men to write this truth down
[@RazorsKiss] If it is the only way to any sort of meaning and hope in all the world, and has always been the only way, planned for from the very beginning of creation.
[BK_] dude, that whole science means nothing if you can’t *know* things
[BK_] again, two worldviews
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot know ANYTHING unless this is true.
[@RazorsKiss] Nada.
[BK_] one makes knowledge possible
[BK_] one destroys it
[BK_] there is only one logical choice here
[@RazorsKiss] That’s the problem all men have. Without this, there is no knowledge, no higher criticism, and no hypotheses that make any sense, let alone have any truth.
[dios_mio] I see your point
[@RazorsKiss] It is impossible to believe anything else, and have any meaning or hope.
[dios_mio] and I accept it that christianity makes knowledge and meaning possible, and the alternative point of view makes it impossible
[@RazorsKiss] Nothing else works.
[BK_] the difficulty is that you (and all of us) tend to “slip” back into that self-centered worldview
[@RazorsKiss] the alternative point of view makes *everything* impossible.
[BK_] well, that is saying a lot, dios_mio
[BK_] what you have just “accepted”
[BK_] but there is more that you have to do
[BK_] because it is one thing to accept that Christians are “right”
[BK_] it is another to accept the very source of truth
[BK_] that’s what you must do
[BK_] ~nas john 3
[@Gutenberg^] 12John 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (NASB)
[@RazorsKiss] There is nothing possible, nothing that makes sense, and nothing that has any truth under any other conception of reality. Nothing at all. Christianity is true because everything else is impossible to even hold the concept of “true” as a part of it.
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot even say “this is true” in any other system of thought.
[BK_] in fact, even for your denial of Christianity to make sense, you must accept that Christianity is true
[dios_mio] I dont say you are right.. just that christianity has meaning and hope, and atheism and science ends up in nihilism… thats for sure… but just because we are compelled to accept christianity for such concerns dont make it true.. because it is after all a matter of historical truth…
[@RazorsKiss] Not unless you steal from it to do so – and you are thereby inconsistent.
[BK_] that’s basically what you have done above
[@RazorsKiss] there is no historical truth in any other system.
[BK_] well consider what you have just said
[@RazorsKiss] there is no truth at all.
[BK_] Christianity has meaning and hope
[BK_] atheism and science end up in nihilism
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, there is much doubt about whether patriarchs and prophets existed at all.. including Jesus himself
[@RazorsKiss] “historical truth” has no meaning, unless you believe as a Christian does.
[BK_] dios_mio: what is the conclusion based on?
[BK_] your conclusion of doubt?
[@RazorsKiss] There is much doubt about everything at all, unless Christianity is true.
[BK_] exactly
[BK_] the doubt is based on your *worldview*
[dios_mio] you cannot change what happened in history simply by pondering on epistemological issues… and remember evolution itself is a historical issue
[@RazorsKiss] There is complete and total doubt about every single fact in the entire scope of reality – there is doubt in reality itself.
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot ponder *anything* apart from Christianity’s truth.
[BK_] you cannot say anything about history without a cogent epistemology
[@RazorsKiss] Christianity, as you said, is the only way for “history” to have any meaning.
[dios_mio] ok then we borrow christian epistemology and look at the world, and we see that christianity is false… this is the paradox we are facing
[@RazorsKiss] because it’s the only way to have meaning at all.
[BK_] no you don’t
[BK_] you cannot borrow from Christianity and see that it is false
[dios_mio] of course you can
[BK_] because if it is false, then it won’t provide what is necessary to see it is false
[BK_] of course you can’t
[dios_mio] higher criticism, history of christianity and judaism, and evolution
[BK_] if Christianity is the *necessary* precondition
[@RazorsKiss] you cannot borrow anything from christianity that is true, and truly see it as false.
[@RazorsKiss] You can falsely see all sorts of thing,s if it is corrupted by your own influence.
[BK_] but none of those make sense unless Christianity is true
[BK_] you cannot rely upon a worldview and then logically conclude that worldview is true
[@RazorsKiss] But Christianity is the only way to have anything mean *anything* at all.
[BK_] because then your conclusion that it is true is based on a faulty starting point
[BK_] if Christianity is necessary as a worldview to make sense out of anything, then it is truly NECESSARY
[@RazorsKiss] you can’t pick and choose what you take – or your hybrid system collapses on the points of your own faulty assumptions grafted onto it.
[dios_mio] you cannot prove christianity true simply by some epistemological considerations… thats an insult to human reason… shall we not discuss the secular analysis of history of bible? and of course there is evolution.. you cannot refute it with epistemology, it is an empirical science with loads of evidence
[@RazorsKiss] the things you left, when you chose the things you liked – are what make the rest truly coherent.
[BK_] what is the secular analysis of the Bible assume, dios_mio?
[dios_mio] BK_, I have in mind the documentary hypothesis and higher criticism
[@RazorsKiss] no, we can’t go back there. there’s no meaning to any of it.
[BK_] it assumes we can *know* things, does it not?
[@RazorsKiss] not within the system it assumes.
[dios_mio] BK_, consider it apart from its assumptions..
[BK_] do you *know* that secular analysis of the history of the Bible is true?
[BK_] impossible
[BK_] we are subjective, remember?
[@RazorsKiss] it *steals* from Christianity – but not the *necessary* aspects – which include ALL of Christianity.
[BK_] we must assume *something* at the start
[BK_] we cannot be neutral
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot separate parts of Christianity, and still get truth.
[@RazorsKiss] You simply steal warrant that doesn’t belong to you.
[BK_] you cannot claim to know that the documentary hypothesis is even meaningful unless Christianity is true
[@RazorsKiss] That doesn’t make anything that is formed from that stolen warrant true – the problem lies in what you steal it TO.
[dios_mio] even if the critic of the bible starts from christian assumptions, and they have, they may and did end up in the results that prove christianity a man made religion like any other
[@RazorsKiss] no, they did NOT start from Christian assumptions.
[BK_] no, that is a logically impossible conclusion
[BK_] due to the nature of the claims made by Christianity
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, I thought the German bible criticism of the 18th and 19th century started as a Christian science
[@RazorsKiss] textual criticism is not higher criticism.
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, they laid out the way for higher criticism
[@RazorsKiss] textual criticism is a valid examination of the text.
[BK_] dios_mio: at this point, all such critiques are meaningless without a worldview that makes knowledge possible
[@RazorsKiss] higher criticism is the attempt to judge the text by an arbitrary higher standard.
[BK_] if Christianity is the only worldview that makes knowledge possible, then it must be true
[BK_] end of story
[@RazorsKiss] But yes, all of that has NO POINT if you do not accept ALL of Christianity.
[@RazorsKiss] because NONE OF IT can be true, if it says Christianity is false.
[BK_] look, here it is as a syllogism
[BK_] a) In order to know that A is true, Christianity must be true
[BK_] b) A is true
[BK_] c) Therefore, Christianity is true
[BK_] you already gave us “a)” above earlier in this discussion
[dios_mio] yeah, how do we know a) is true without knowing Christianity is true? your argument is circular
[BK_] “dios_mio: and I accept it that christianity makes knowledge and meaning possible, and the alternative point of view makes it impossible”
[@RazorsKiss] No, it’s axiomatic.
[BK_] because of the impossibility of the contrary
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot have true knowledge apart from Christianity.
[BK_] because anytime you deny it, you destroy knowledge and meaning
[@RazorsKiss] The Christianity revealed in Scripture, by God.
[BK_] you recognized this above … “dios_mio: and I accept it that christianity makes knowledge and meaning possible, and the alternative point of view makes it impossible”
[dios_mio] maybe thats a paradox we are doomed to be have
[BK_] there is no paradox
[dios_mio] well sure
[@RazorsKiss] there is simply truth.
[BK_] if you deny Christianity, you cannot make anything meaningful
[dios_mio] no doubt
[@RazorsKiss] the truth is: we require God, who is truth, to have a contingent knowledge of truth
[BK_] are you saying that, right here and now, you choose to deny Christianity?
[@RazorsKiss] our knowledge of truth is contingent upon God, who is intrinsically “truth”.
[BK_] even considering the fact that the result is that you cannot make anything meaningful or know anything at all??
[@RazorsKiss] There is no truth to be known apart from God, and no other way to know truth, except by the revelation of God.
[BK_] the choice is in front of you, dios_mio
[dios_mio] you are asking me to ignore the whole science of biology and secular history of christianity
[@RazorsKiss] ~nas john 14:6
[@Gutenberg^] 12John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (NASB)
[BK_] what meaning does it have?
[@RazorsKiss] We are asking you to give up meaninglessness, death, and ignorance for the only truth that can, or will ever, exist.
[dios_mio] BK_, that is the paradox we are facing
[BK_] why are you clinging to science and biology?
[@RazorsKiss] Truth only has one source.
[BK_] not we, you
[@RazorsKiss] God.
[BK_] why do you cling to science and biology, dios_mio?
[BK_] they are meaningless
[dios_mio] BK_, we are clinging to it because it is based in study and experience… it is not just speculation or myth
[@RazorsKiss] There is no paradox. You are clinging to meaninglessness, and that is the only problem.
[BK_] but that study is meaningless, dios_mio
[@RazorsKiss] All based on what, dios?
[BK_] your experience is in doubt
[@RazorsKiss] Meaninglessness.
[BK_] it is, in fact, speculation
[BK_] and myth
[BK_] “dios_mio: and I accept it that christianity makes knowledge and meaning possible, and the alternative point of view makes it impossible”
[dios_mio] the study becomes meaningless after considering the implications of its findings
[@RazorsKiss] They have no valid, truth-bearing experience.
[BK_] thereby rendering the study meaningless
[@RazorsKiss] Let me make a point that might help.
[BK_] the conclusion refutes the process used to reach the conclusion
[BK_] I have to leave in a few minutes
[@RazorsKiss] The choice you’re facing is simple.
[dios_mio] well yeah.. this is the paradoxical nature of our existence..
[BK_] go ahead, RK
[@RazorsKiss] Do you trust people you’ve already told us have no meaning, and no way to explain why what they say is true, what they say is true, and how they can claim it is true
[@RazorsKiss] ie: scientists
[@RazorsKiss] Or, do you trust the only possible source of truth, meaning, hope, and salvation?
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, their findings are based on sound evidence and study of many years
[@RazorsKiss] It’s very simple.
[@RazorsKiss] All of which HAS NO MEANING, by your OWN admission.
[dios_mio] true
[@RazorsKiss] Nothing.
[@RazorsKiss] It is POINTLESS.
[@RazorsKiss] They can say whatever they want – you are trusting blindly in blind guides
[dios_mio] I have to ponder about this subject more… but now I have to leave, its been a great discussion thanks both of you
[@RazorsKiss] they are blind, they lead the blind, and they will both fall into a pit of nihilism, with no way to even find a way out, even if they could recognize it.
[dios_mio] we continue another time ok?
[BK_] thank you dios_mio for listening
[BK_] yes, definitely
[dios_mio] thank you
[BK_] we are praying for you
[BK_] 🙂
[@RazorsKiss] Sure – but remember – there is only One truth, and one way to truth.
[dios_mio] ok thanks
[@RazorsKiss] We’ll be praying – and remember dios
[dios_mio] yeah
[@RazorsKiss] I told I’d be praying for you over a year ago
[@RazorsKiss] I have been 😀
[dios_mio] heh yeah
[dios_mio] thanks man
[@RazorsKiss] There are no accidents in God’s world.
[dios_mio] 🙂
[@RazorsKiss] Only His truth 😀
[@RazorsKiss] Come back.
[dios_mio] yes maybe
[dios_mio] ok ttyl
* dios_mio (test@88.243.102.125) Quit

I’m a bit disappointed, I confess, because the person we talked to in this post has since come back and is debating along the same lines again. I’ll post that conversation next, but I’d like to post this to remind him where he was, and what he’s forgotten. I’m still praying for him – and I hope you will do.