quote:

---

Not true as you state elsewhere:The laws of logic act as the foundation of any serious stab at epistemology, since they are what we use in order to be
rational at all. The very concept of "evidence" and "proof" presuppose them . Because our ability to reasondepends on the ontological existence of such a foundation both logic and our ability cannot be the products of blind impersonal chance, that would be like playin craps with loaded dice.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you have yet to provide evidence for any form of dualism, contrasted against materialism's success in providing
evidence that our thoughts, consciousness, and learning arise from our physical brain, it quite shows that matter, in the
proper configuration, can lead to thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRONG AGAIN,the inability of your materlistic view to provide the otological foundation for both IS EVIDENCE for the existence of both our dualistic nature and the existence of THE LOGOS from which both derive.Since you have not and ,I believe cannot support you ridiculious position "that matter, in the proper configuration,can lead to thought." (if I'm wrong you really need to check out the "Million Dollar Award" over the ID thread if you can prove that your in for quite a bit of cash,Good Luck).(edited for ref.

http://www.us.net/life/ ) ;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slater:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there you have the whole problem with all of your answers. They don't come from looking for actual answers they come straight from your imagination. You have to use faith because, as you admit, you have no proof. But since you have no proof your faith is baseless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However we see blind faith in materialism below,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to m

quote:

---

Ahh Dave wrong again I said in several different threads( I'll have to get back to on the ref's) that a mind is capable of self-reflective thought about his/hers existence,the laws of rational thought,able to investigate the universe around them and make rational predications based on those observations and in compliance with the laws of rational thought.You know Dave homo sapein "Man The Thinker".Now the big difference between us Dave is I have REASON for my confidence in reason my source is that our ability to reason was bestowed on us by our VERY RATIONAL CREATOR.Your shakey confidence in reason was already manifest on another thread where you were defending the position that it was unreasonable to claim "That in order to deny logic you must use it".You then tried ,just as you are here,to give some logical reasons as to why we should't believe the above statement,thus proving it,inadvertently.But tell me Dave what your theory as to the origin of our mind?

---

quote:

---

The argument from evil:

1. If God exists, He is all-good, so he wants to prevent evil.

2. If God exists, He is all-wise, so He knows how to prevent evil.

3. If God exists, He is all-powerful, so He is able to prevent evil.

4. Therefor, either there is no evil, or God does not exist.

5. There is evil.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

The argument as an inference to the best explanation:

---

• 1.If there is indeed no God,what's the "beef" things just are that way;bad things happen to good people.
• 2.Also who defines what is "good" or "evil" from a non-theistic universe?
• 3.From the above 2 points we can see that "the objection" is only relevant if There is indeed a God to which then the question is "Why does God allow this type of situation?"

quote:

---

I'mreally beginning to question your intellectual integrety pal You are the one who continually brings up red herrings and changes the meanings to what you say.I' posted more than enough evidence for my position...

---

quote:

---

...a mind is capable of self-reflective thought about his/hers existence,the laws of rational thought,able to investigate the universe around them and make rational predications based on those observations and in compliance with the laws of rational thought.

---

quote:

---

you answer my question that I asked to you before I give you weasling hide one more response

---

quote:

---

But tell me Dave what your theory as to the origin of our mind?

---

quote:

---

2.Also who defines what is "good" or "evil" from a non-theistic universe?

---

quote:

---

DA, I need you to be more specific with your arguments before I can understand what you are trying to prove

---

quote:

---

So, what I've heard from you to date is:

· I think, therefore I am,

---

quote:

---

quote:

My original argument for the Existence of God is based on the futility of a impersonal mindless origin of our reasoning ability:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELABORATION: INTERACTIVE DUALISM NOT PHYSICALISM

The epistemological argument against Naturalism is also developed in J. P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular
City (chapter three); especially pages 90-96). Moreland's argument is more sophisticated than Sire's and
appeals to the philosophical problems of physicalism (Materialism) in explaining our mental states and their
potential verdicality. He argues that since physicalism reduces to or logically entails determinism, there
would be no reason to think that a materially necessitated brain would know truth--which involves
intellectual assessment and rational deliberation not allowed of determined mechanisms. Thought would be
reduced to a mere reflex action on the order of a muscle twinge. But can glorified muscle twinges weigh
evidence and reach warranted conclusions?

C. S. Lewis argues in a similar, but less developed, fashion in Miracles where he distinguishes between
clauses for phenomena and reasons for holding beliefs. The former are nonrational while the latter demand
an ability to have insight into truth. Consider how we use the world “because.” If we say “X moved
because it was propelled by Y” we are using “because” in a causal fashion. Yet if we say “I believe X on
the basis of Y” we are using “because” not in a causal fashion but with respect to reasons or grounds for
believing X. Lewis argues that if Naturalism is true we could never grant reasons for holding beliefs since
all our brain states would be rigorously determined in a materialistically caused fashion. Both Lewis and
Moreland are arguing not only for a rational God to ensure that knowledge is possible, but that we require a
mind distinct but related to our bodies (interactive dualism) in order to know truth. They also argue that
mind is best explained by the Christian world view. Sire's version of the epistemological argument does not
mention the need for an immaterial mind, but proceeds o

quote:

---

EVOLUTION
Plain and simple, down and dirty evolution. No need for magic sky fairies, no need for "gifts," no need to transcend
(whatever that even means) the real world. Evolution worked just fine.

---

quote:

---

Exposition:

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or
questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating
your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If
you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

1."Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
2."No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the
question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a
statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to
either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up
into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the Example as follows:

1."Have you ever beaten your wife?"
2."If so, are you still doing so?"

In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

---