Atheism Vs Christianity | Dunkin' Atheism Vs FloridaMan
The god of Christianity has revealed himself in natural and special revelation. God has constructed the world where all facts indicate himself as the metaphysical primary of all secondary and temporal facts because we are personal and possess rationality and apprehension of these temporal and Secretary facts they necessitate that the metaphysical primary God is personal as well otherwise we would not be personal rejecting this by implication claim the impersonal primary ultimate would to beget or produce the personal claiming directly and indirectly that the impersonal primary ultimate begets or produces a personal is not coherent nor can it be defended. Gods special revelation culminating in the Christian scripture of the Bible informs us of God's necessary attributes set which is required for human intelligibility if my opponent either outright denies or merely lacks believe in God or the God of the Bible then he'll be necessarily required to present and defend his metaphysical primary and its attributes in the absence of doing this he will be without groaning or basis to assert any possibility or impossibility thereby plunging himself into complete metaphysical absurdity or into incoherence thereby demonstrating Christianity is true due to the impossibility of its denial my opponent will continue to make assertions of possibility and impossibility and I will continue to ask him to provide a basis for these that will require him to defend what is metaphysically primary that prescribes any statement of possibility when he fails or refuses to defend his metaphysical primary that God that his his metaphysical primary the god of Christianity will be demonstrated by the impossibility of denying him the god of Christianity will be established by a reductio ad absurdum.
A fact in question will either be dependent or non-dependent whatever would be non-dependent unconditionally non-dependent or ultimate my definition would be metaphysically primary that gives rise to what is temporal or secondary or dependent so either either any fact in question will either be metaphysically primary or a fact in question if it is not will be secondary and derive and depend on what as benefit metaphysically primary if you reject the notion that there is something fundamentally unconditionally non-dependent and metaphysically primary you can have no intelligibility for secondary facts
Are the are the laws of the Newton universe are they primary or secondary ?
I don't know I never studied Newtonian physics
okay so you don't know why there are any laws at all they just are
that seems to be the case yeah
okay do you know what that's called that's called a brute fact okay a brute fact is something that exists for no actual reason at all it just happens or is either at one moment or it has some type of continuation and it could end at any time that's a brute fact that's what you believe in so are we clear on that
yeah
let's go with that okay now what that means is that anything goes in your worldview there is nothing absolute that provides for securing continuity some things may continue they may not continue at any given moment all right so when you talk about the laws laws of nature you're talking about them as though they have continuance and continuity from the past to the present and the future but you told me that there's nothing that secures that so you're guilty of contradicting yourself whether you realize it or not
your position is that you have no identifiable basis or foundation which prescribes possibility
when you categorically reject that there is a personal rational metaphysical primary that Institute's and prescribes what is possible or impossible then when you speak forth statements about sciency stuff or anything for that matter you're making statements of possibility and impossibility I want to know what it is foundationally and fundamentally that secures and prescribes what is possible and impossible ?
Are the laws of physics foundational and nothing secures them and holds them into place or is there something behind that Institute's and secures laws of physics ?
Christianity is a is a worldview which is all encompassing it includes what is metaphysically primary and what is instituted by the primary the secondary or temporal things the God of the Bible is metaphysically primary and God Institute's and prescribes what is possible or impossible
When you read the God of the Bible you will be plunged into an ocean of absurdity for which you will have no basis to make assertions I am demonstrating that by asking you what is the grounding the foundational philosophical and metaphysical grounding of anything you say
When you make assertions of any kind, assertions and denials, possibilities and impossibility, they will either be grounded in something that prescribes possibility or impossibility or statements of possibility and impossibility coming from your frame of reference will mean anything goes and therefore you will not have grounds for intelligibility.
Are the laws of nature ultimate absolute unconditionally non dependent and eternal ?
You reject the revelation of the Christian God and for that matter that anything is ultimately and metaphysically primary metaphysical means the nature of reality in all that it encompasses it's a legitimate philosophical work
The cosmos is it something that is concrete or is an abstraction of the many the cosmos is everything in nature okay is it an abstraction of a set of many things it is everything I mean they said oh is it how much simpler can I make it okay is it a mental set of many particulars is it a mental set no it's everything that is physical
it is everything
that's that's what a mental set is okay now so the cosmos is not just one thing concretely the cosmos in your view is one thing conceptually that is a set right it's a mental abstraction a set of many separate particulate
I'm talking about eligibility I'm talking about a philosophical problem it's called the one in the many product the one of the many problem is a perennial problem for all worldviews and the problem it goes as follows what is the ultimate nature of reality is it in its oneness or not its oneness now in order for you to have an intelligible worldview free of God and you claim both directly and indirectly that you can be rational and intelligible without God being metaphysically primary then that means you're gonna have to answer from your worldview okay what is the fundamental and ultimate nature of reality is it in its oneness concretely or isn't it in its manyness concrete
When you speak to me from your world view which you explicitly and implicitly claim are the grounds for intelligibility when you reject the God of the Bible and his property set then your worldview and its foundation will have to have the basis for intelligibility that's going to start with the basic question what is the ultimate nature of what you call reality
God there is zero evidence for God
so when you say there's no evidence for God what you're saying is facts do not stand in causal relations with God as the metaphysical primary how did you determine that ?
God is metaphysically primary and then there is creation that a secondary the only way you could do so is to tell me then what is metaphysically ultimate and primary that negates God what is it ?
So if an invisible sky wizard doesn't secure the laws of nature Institute's and sustain them what sustains physics ?
If you actually talk to somebody who's trained in physics especially the philosophy of science they will tell you that the uniformity of nature or that nature operates according to laws cannot be derived from an empirical process because an empirical process presupposes laws of nature.
you committed the fallacy of begging the question you're presupposing the very thing thing you're attempting to establish when you say that you use the scientific method or empirical endeavors in order to ascertain and demonstrate laws of nature empirical methodology presupposes laws of nature for their actuality that's begging the question
I focused on what would Institute and secure them when I ask you what is it that Institute's and secures laws of nature you said you don't know
Can you justify that there are laws of nature without appealing to means that presuppose them ? you are smuggling the conclusion into the premises.
If you were to ask any professor of the philosophy of science they would tell you that all sense perception presupposes that nature operates in some regular ways
I'm using a reductio ad absurdum can you tell me what prescribes any and all possibility if it is not God then what prescribes any and all possibility because if you don't answer that question then you're asserting possibility impossibility is violating your own criterion of belief that you use to dismiss God.
In order for you to have intelligibility you're going to have to have a grounding of what Institute's and prescribes possibility and impossibility ?
Does evidence require that possibility and impossibility be prescribed ?
if you do not hold to the concept that something is metaphysically primary or ontologically primary if nothing at all is fundamentally ultimate absolute and unconditionally non-dependent then it is completely incoherent to talk about any facts because number one they would not be ultimate or fundamentally they derive from anything so they would literally be incoherent okay so it is incoherent to reject the notion that something is metaphysically primary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZxWBhmBRjM
The god of Christianity has revealed himself in natural and special revelation. God has constructed the world where all facts indicate himself as the metaphysical primary of all secondary and temporal facts because we are personal and possess rationality and apprehension of these temporal and Secretary facts they necessitate that the metaphysical primary God is personal as well otherwise we would not be personal rejecting this by implication claim the impersonal primary ultimate would to beget or produce the personal claiming directly and indirectly that the impersonal primary ultimate begets or produces a personal is not coherent nor can it be defended. Gods special revelation culminating in the Christian scripture of the Bible informs us of God's necessary attributes set which is required for human intelligibility if my opponent either outright denies or merely lacks believe in God or the God of the Bible then he'll be necessarily required to present and defend his metaphysical primary and its attributes in the absence of doing this he will be without groaning or basis to assert any possibility or impossibility thereby plunging himself into complete metaphysical absurdity or into incoherence thereby demonstrating Christianity is true due to the impossibility of its denial my opponent will continue to make assertions of possibility and impossibility and I will continue to ask him to provide a basis for these that will require him to defend what is metaphysically primary that prescribes any statement of possibility when he fails or refuses to defend his metaphysical primary that God that his his metaphysical primary the god of Christianity will be demonstrated by the impossibility of denying him the god of Christianity will be established by a reductio ad absurdum.
A fact in question will either be dependent or non-dependent whatever would be non-dependent unconditionally non-dependent or ultimate my definition would be metaphysically primary that gives rise to what is temporal or secondary or dependent so either either any fact in question will either be metaphysically primary or a fact in question if it is not will be secondary and derive and depend on what as benefit metaphysically primary if you reject the notion that there is something fundamentally unconditionally non-dependent and metaphysically primary you can have no intelligibility for secondary facts
Are the are the laws of the Newton universe are they primary or secondary ?
I don't know I never studied Newtonian physics
okay so you don't know why there are any laws at all they just are
that seems to be the case yeah
okay do you know what that's called that's called a brute fact okay a brute fact is something that exists for no actual reason at all it just happens or is either at one moment or it has some type of continuation and it could end at any time that's a brute fact that's what you believe in so are we clear on that
yeah
let's go with that okay now what that means is that anything goes in your worldview there is nothing absolute that provides for securing continuity some things may continue they may not continue at any given moment all right so when you talk about the laws laws of nature you're talking about them as though they have continuance and continuity from the past to the present and the future but you told me that there's nothing that secures that so you're guilty of contradicting yourself whether you realize it or not
your position is that you have no identifiable basis or foundation which prescribes possibility
when you categorically reject that there is a personal rational metaphysical primary that Institute's and prescribes what is possible or impossible then when you speak forth statements about sciency stuff or anything for that matter you're making statements of possibility and impossibility I want to know what it is foundationally and fundamentally that secures and prescribes what is possible and impossible ?
Are the laws of physics foundational and nothing secures them and holds them into place or is there something behind that Institute's and secures laws of physics ?
Christianity is a is a worldview which is all encompassing it includes what is metaphysically primary and what is instituted by the primary the secondary or temporal things the God of the Bible is metaphysically primary and God Institute's and prescribes what is possible or impossible
When you read the God of the Bible you will be plunged into an ocean of absurdity for which you will have no basis to make assertions I am demonstrating that by asking you what is the grounding the foundational philosophical and metaphysical grounding of anything you say
When you make assertions of any kind, assertions and denials, possibilities and impossibility, they will either be grounded in something that prescribes possibility or impossibility or statements of possibility and impossibility coming from your frame of reference will mean anything goes and therefore you will not have grounds for intelligibility.
Are the laws of nature ultimate absolute unconditionally non dependent and eternal ?
You reject the revelation of the Christian God and for that matter that anything is ultimately and metaphysically primary metaphysical means the nature of reality in all that it encompasses it's a legitimate philosophical work
The cosmos is it something that is concrete or is an abstraction of the many the cosmos is everything in nature okay is it an abstraction of a set of many things it is everything I mean they said oh is it how much simpler can I make it okay is it a mental set of many particulars is it a mental set no it's everything that is physical
it is everything
that's that's what a mental set is okay now so the cosmos is not just one thing concretely the cosmos in your view is one thing conceptually that is a set right it's a mental abstraction a set of many separate particulate
I'm talking about eligibility I'm talking about a philosophical problem it's called the one in the many product the one of the many problem is a perennial problem for all worldviews and the problem it goes as follows what is the ultimate nature of reality is it in its oneness or not its oneness now in order for you to have an intelligible worldview free of God and you claim both directly and indirectly that you can be rational and intelligible without God being metaphysically primary then that means you're gonna have to answer from your worldview okay what is the fundamental and ultimate nature of reality is it in its oneness concretely or isn't it in its manyness concrete
When you speak to me from your world view which you explicitly and implicitly claim are the grounds for intelligibility when you reject the God of the Bible and his property set then your worldview and its foundation will have to have the basis for intelligibility that's going to start with the basic question what is the ultimate nature of what you call reality
God there is zero evidence for God
so when you say there's no evidence for God what you're saying is facts do not stand in causal relations with God as the metaphysical primary how did you determine that ?
God is metaphysically primary and then there is creation that a secondary the only way you could do so is to tell me then what is metaphysically ultimate and primary that negates God what is it ?
So if an invisible sky wizard doesn't secure the laws of nature Institute's and sustain them what sustains physics ?
If you actually talk to somebody who's trained in physics especially the philosophy of science they will tell you that the uniformity of nature or that nature operates according to laws cannot be derived from an empirical process because an empirical process presupposes laws of nature.
you committed the fallacy of begging the question you're presupposing the very thing thing you're attempting to establish when you say that you use the scientific method or empirical endeavors in order to ascertain and demonstrate laws of nature empirical methodology presupposes laws of nature for their actuality that's begging the question
I focused on what would Institute and secure them when I ask you what is it that Institute's and secures laws of nature you said you don't know
Can you justify that there are laws of nature without appealing to means that presuppose them ? you are smuggling the conclusion into the premises.
If you were to ask any professor of the philosophy of science they would tell you that all sense perception presupposes that nature operates in some regular ways
I'm using a reductio ad absurdum can you tell me what prescribes any and all possibility if it is not God then what prescribes any and all possibility because if you don't answer that question then you're asserting possibility impossibility is violating your own criterion of belief that you use to dismiss God.
In order for you to have intelligibility you're going to have to have a grounding of what Institute's and prescribes possibility and impossibility ?
Does evidence require that possibility and impossibility be prescribed ?
if you do not hold to the concept that something is metaphysically primary or ontologically primary if nothing at all is fundamentally ultimate absolute and unconditionally non-dependent then it is completely incoherent to talk about any facts because number one they would not be ultimate or fundamentally they derive from anything so they would literally be incoherent okay so it is incoherent to reject the notion that something is metaphysically primary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZxWBhmBRjM
