Your topic Karla Homolka – Child Rapist, Torturer and Killer … was interesting when I found it on Saturday searching for basement doctor as I also have articles and information posted on this subject. Thank You… Best Regards Steve Noel Sr….

Report comment to moderator

so you might be interested in reading “Alpha and Omega” by Seife. It seems to explictly discuss many of the topics which we have been discussing.

Report comment to moderator

but you suggested a 100 page book with 10 chapters on different topics!

No, in a stanbard logical formulation, the logic is linear. You start with the assumption set, whch is given and you derive additonal theorems based onthese assumptions. I will let Goedel’s argument leave for a while here.

If one finds a contradiction then one goes back and decides which axiom to change or relax.

In the case of the author’s position, the Bible is inerrant. All beliefs must be challenged. If the challenge shows the Bible wrong, the challenge is in error because the Bible says that it is true, and after all humans have finite understanding.

Very different than exploring geometries or other logical frameworks where when an axiom fails, one relooks at the axioms.

The author’s model fails by the very test with which the author insists we must evaluate all presuppositional systems.

And remember, I pulled these points from the authors quotes, that was one of the reasons the posts were so long.

I suggest that it is logical systewm shiwhc dare not allow the assumptions set to bne challenged which create the circulkar reasoning so that the assumption set can n ot be challenged.

I gave you my assumption set in post 113. Please show me where I am circular?

Report comment to moderator

The assumption set is axiomatic. It is correct that this, in and of itself, is not circular. However, everyone reasons from a basic starting point, and, in that sense, everyone is ultimately circular in their thinking (only because they are basing their reasoning on that particular starting point). It is the contention of the author (and I would agree) that the materialist/naturalist cannot justify the use of such reasoning, since there will a conflict at the base level.

Report comment to moderator

and the quick summary is that a strict interpretation model of the Bible is the sticking point for all of these discussions.

And I seriously doubt that for anyone who accepts that:

“In the course of religious discussion between Christians and non-Christians both sides should be put into the position of justifying their beliefs.”

would assert that the argument to justify an inerrant interpretation of the Bible is not supportable unless one uses circular reasoning. And I have demonstrated that circular reasoning is not required for an assumption set.

Report comment to moderator

some points: no I meant atomic: each axiom addresses what is arguably a single specfic assumption: e.g. a line is a connection between two points.

The assumption of an strict-literal interpretation of the Bible encompasses accepting all the points in the Bible: as is specifically noted by the author. As noted, the denominational demographic majority of Christians do not accept this model of interpretation.

But of course this is a rather large bundling of a large number of assumptions. If one is not very careful, it can lead to a large number of internal inconsistencies.

As a last point, it was my belief that you wanted an honest, and attentive review of the material. I have attempted to do so with an effort to base it directly on the quotes of the author so as to minimize the possiblity of misinterpretaton on my part. I did this to honor your sense of the quality of this material.

I could have given you the short summary of my observations on this book, but it would have provided no understanding of why I came to those conclusions.

Report comment to moderator

thanks for the links. I will look into this.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Just a couple of observations, though: 1st, I never maintained (and even denied) that a “majority” position was sufficient for defining Christian orthodoxy, so I do not understand your goose/gander/inconsistency comment (unless you were attributing it to our author, not I). And with regard to your law of excluded middle comment: yes, we have had this discussion before, we did not agree (I merely pointed out that if a “different God” that the one proposed by the speaker exists, then the second proposition, that God does not exist, is a logically valid one; you do not agree with this still, I am guess, and I am not interested in numerous posts back and forth to dig up ground that has already been mined).

With regard to our book (btw, you keep using the phrase “atomic”; did you mean “axiomatic”?) and presuppositions, I would say you are somewhat mistaken. As I stated above, saying that Christianity begins with the presupposition that “God exists and has revealed Himself to mankind” is not a complex set of presuppositions. One may argue that complex issues result from this, and, yes, there are epistemological and metaphysical questions that are related to this, but in comparison to other worldview/philosophical systems, which assume quite a bit more, it is relatively simple. Granted, as with any single statement in language, there are myriad assumptions that are made, but if this defines complexity in a statement, then neither of us (and I mean more than simply you and I) is going to get anywhere fast. We could sit down and take perhaps a single sentence from you of your posts and debate the meaning of words and phrases for quite a long time, but that is not only unprofitable and a waste of time, but it defies the normal modes of communication (which assumes that two individuals communicating have a basic understanding of what the other person is saying). One might even argue that the development of language is another problem for the materialistic/naturalistic worldview as well.

To say that Christians claim that those who preceded them borrowed capital from the Christian worldview is a misunderstanding of Biblical revelation. Granted, the name “Christian” did not come about until after the birth/death/resurrection of Christ, but it is a mistake to say that the “Christian worldview” did not exist until then. Since the gospel was promised in Eden (according to Genesis 3), and since the opening chapters of Genesis claim that God created man in His image, it is not a stretch (in the least), if one presupposes the validity of the word of God, to say that a “Christian worldview” (you can call it something else, such as a “Biblical worldview” or a “Yahwehist worldview” if you like) can be extended to the beginning of history. Of course, if one presupposes that the Bible is not true (which is the worldview our author is arguing against) then one will argue differently, but it is the author’s contention that this will lead to self-contradictions in the worldview (and borrowed assumptions in order to make the worldview “work”).

I would disagree that the book does not forward the argument. You are not really the “target audience” (at least not the primary one). He is writing to show that the Christian religion is a reasonable one (which I don’t think you would object to). There are certainly better books out there, but this one is written at a more popular level and doesn’t go too deeply into complex philosophical arguments. But it does at least consider these arguments, which most folks arguing, for instance, from a materialistic/naturalistic worldview have not even really considered (many that I’ve come into contact with think they are being perfectly neutral in the way they consider the universe, and they haven’t even considered the possibility that this in not even true or justifiable without making certain assumptions). If it causes the unbeliever to reconsider his/her worldview, then it does push the argument forward, imo.

But, having now spent more than 30 minutes writing a single post that does not address everything in your multiple posts. If we are having a battle of wits by attrition, I would say that the spoils will ultimately go to you, and ask for a cease fire.

Report comment to moderator

so I can continue here. The following seems clear:

1) the chapter on evolution would appear very weak and the argument appears to fail the authors own test for assumption sets

2) the chapter on world religions uses Hinduism as an example. I suggest that the chapter would read very differently if, for example, Islam were used as an example. I am outlining the basic structure of the argument here and post 125 seems to provide an interesting starting point for this discussion

3) the authors argumets on logic are flawed: there is a deep issue regarding abstractions and reality which I hint at early in post 123

These are the obvious remaining topics.

Obviously I can continue.

The question to you TJ, is is it necessary?

I suggest tha following as the summary:

1) “Faith with Reason” is a nice clear compendium of the issues typically raised during disucssion between a strict interpretaionalist perspective and a non-strict interpretational perspective

2) it appears to rest on some assumptions which do not appear to be accepted by all
- the defense of these assumption would appear to fail the authors own requirements for validating an assumption set: see post 90 page 89 quote

So in short, while I believe it does a nice job of documenting the arguments well, it does not appear to provide new and unique insights into the argument AND it is not clear that it moves the argument forward in any measurable way.

And it is very unlikely that it will be accepted as a valid argument by anyone who has not already accepted a strict-interpretationalist viewpoint.

Report comment to moderator